Policy

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

Highlights U.S. Treasuries: The downturn in U.S. inflation looks to be stabilizing, while the U.S. economy continues to churn along at an above-potential growth pace. Treasury yields are now at risk of a repricing of both inflation expectations and Fed rate hike probabilities. Treasury-Bund Spread: The "leadership" of the global bond market is likely to switch back to the U.S. from Europe in the next few months, which will lead to an underperformance of Treasuries. We are entering a new Tactical Overlay trade this week, shorting 10-year U.S. Treasuries versus 10-year German Bunds. Central Bank Balance Sheets: Central banks with large amounts of maturing bonds on their balance sheets, like the Fed and the Bank of Japan, have had no choice but to signal a slower pace of future bond buying. The ECB is in a similar boat, as its holdings of German debt approach issuer limits in the ECB portfolio. A slower pace of ECB bond buying is certain in 2018, to the detriment of European government bond market performance. Chart 1UST Yields Have Some##br## Catching Up To Do Feature Is the surprising 2017 downdraft in U.S. inflation starting to bottom out? The latest set of readings on growth in prices and wages provides some evidence that the decline may be over. Core PCE inflation rose on a year-over-year basis in June for the first time since January. In July, Average Hourly Earnings had the largest monthly increase since October of last year (Chart 1). With oil prices up 16% off the mid-June lows, and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar down nearly 5% over the same period, the stars are aligned for a pickup in U.S. inflation in the coming months. A sustained rebound in realized inflation would be the catalyst for a renewed rise in U.S. Treasury yields, particularly with U.S. economic data starting to show more upside surprises. With the market only priced for 28bps of Fed rate hikes over the next twelve months, Treasuries are exposed to any improvement in U.S. growth and inflation. Treasuries are certainly due for a bit of catchup to the moves in global bond yields seen over the past couple of months. Rate hike expectations have ratcheted higher in a number of countries that have left policy rates at very low levels as growth has accelerated, such as Canada, the U.K. and Sweden (bottom panel). This has put mild upward pressure on government bond yields in those markets. Yields in the Euro Area have also been rising, not because of rate hike expectations but rather a growing belief that the European Central Bank (ECB) will soon begin paring back the pace of its asset purchases. Reduced central bank buying by the Fed, ECB and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) remains a major threat to the global bond market. It will likely take higher yields to entice other investors to absorb the supply of global duration risk currently taken down by central banks. This is a longer-term factor that will place a gently rising floor underneath global bond yields. In the meantime, the path of least resistance for bond yields in the next 6-12 months remains upward as expectations for U.S. inflation and Fed rate hikes shift higher. The Fed Will Soon Be Back In Play Chart 2Low Unemployment, ##br##But With A Low Equilibrium Rate The July U.S. employment report released last week showed continued strength in hiring activity. The headline number of +209k jobs created was above expectations, bringing the 2017 monthly average up to +184k which is almost identical to the +187k average seen in 2016. The headline U-3 unemployment rate dipped back to a cyclical low of 4.3%, in line with the lows of the previous two business cycles (Chart 2). The broader U-6 measure was unchanged at 8.6% - within hailing distance of the low seen during the last business cycle (8.0% in 2007). Yet despite the historically low levels of unemployment, wage inflation is still only holding steady and not yet accelerating. The annual growth rate of Average Hourly Earnings remains stuck around 2.5%, while other measures like the Employment Cost Index are also showing little upward momentum. Yet as long as wage growth is not decelerating, the Fed is likely to remain confident that inflation should eventually drift back up to the central bank's 2% target IF the economy grows in line with its forecasts and additional spare capacity in labor markets is absorbed. The Fed has been openly debating the appropriate level of the real funds rate in recent weeks. Measures such as the Laubach-Williams "R-star" have been cited as evidence that the Fed may be getting very close to a neutral funds rate. However, this is only true if realized inflation stays at current levels. If inflation begins to reaccelerate, additional interest rate increases would be needed to restore the real Fed funds rate back even to current levels. More increases would be needed to get the real funds rate back to even just the current R-star estimate of -0.2%. A level of the real funds rate above R-star could even be necessary if realized inflation was above the Fed's target, as occurred in the late-1990s and mid-2000s when the U.S. Employment/Population ratio climbed higher alongside a steadily growing economy (bottom panel). For now, however, we see the Fed as remaining in a wait-and-see mode, holding off on any additional rate hikes until higher inflation begins to manifest itself in the actual data. In the meantime, market expectations for U.S. inflation are already starting to drift higher. The 10-year TIPS breakeven is at 1.80%, up +13bps since June 16th. The model for breakevens developed by our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, based on financial market variables has also increased by 6bps to 1.82% over the same period, suggesting that current breakevens are now essentially at fair value. (Chart 3). While breakevens remain well below the 2.5% level that we deem to be consistent with the Fed's inflation mandate, this shift in the direction of expectations is critical given the current low level of Treasury yields.1 Chart 3A Weaker USD Should Soon##br## Boost Growth & Inflation The sharp decline in financial market volatility seen across risk assets over the past few months can largely be traced back to that pullback in realized U.S. inflation since February. Interest rate volatility has collapsed alongside the drop in inflation, as investors have priced in a less hawkish Fed outlook. This also triggered a bout of U.S. dollar weakness that has helped boost demand for assets that typically suffer during periods of U.S. dollar strength, like Emerging Market equities and credit. If inflation begins to soon perk up again, as we expect, then Fed rate hikes will come back into play and both bond volatility and the U.S. dollar will increase, providing a challenge to the current stable return profiles for both equities and corporate credit. We still see the Fed only slowly nudging the funds rate up towards equilibrium levels over the next year, unless inflation rises at a much faster rate than both the Fed and markets expect. Coming at a time when the U.S. economy will continue to churn along at a steady above-potential pace, risk assets can continue to outperform Treasuries even with some appreciation of the U.S. dollar, although with a higher level of market volatility. We still see a December rate hike as the most likely next move on rates by the Fed, with an announcement on reducing the Fed's balance sheet, which has been well-telegraphed, likely in September. This sequence will give the Fed time to assess developments in inflation while still incrementally "normalizing" its monetary policy by beginning to reduce the reinvestment of maturing bonds in its portfolio. A shift to more hawkish Fed expectations would open up the potential for a tactical widening of the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds. The current spread is too low relative to differentials at the short ends of the respective yield curves, and is holding at the rising trendline that began in 2014 (Chart 4, top panel). At the same time, the gap between the Citigroup economic data surprise indices for the U.S. and Euro Area is starting to widen in a direction that should trigger a wider Treasury-Bund spread (middle panel) - especially given the large net long positions still seen in Treasury bond futures (bottom panel). A tactical widening of the Treasury-Bund spread is not inconsistent with our views on the ECB (Chart 5). We still expect some additional upward pressure on Euro Area bond yields as the ECB announces a tapering of its asset purchases at next month's monetary policy meeting. However, there has already been a considerable adjustment higher in European yields since ECB President Mario Draghi's relatively hawkish Portugal speech in June - one that was not matched by U.S. Treasuries. The next move in "leadership" for global bonds will come from a return of U.S. inflation and Fed hawkishness, not from Europe. Chart 4Higher Volatility On The Horizon? Chart 5Position For A Tactically Wider UST-Bund Spread On the back of this, we are opening up a new trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio this week, going short 10-year U.S. Treasuries vs 10-year German Bunds. Bottom Line: The downturn in U.S. inflation looks to be stabilizing, while the U.S. economy continues to churn along at an above-potential growth pace. Treasury yields are now at risk of a repricing of both inflation expectations and Fed rate hike probabilities. The "leadership" of the global bond market is likely to switch back to the U.S. from Europe in the next few months, which will lead to underperformance of Treasuries. Thus, we are entering a new Tactical Overlay trade this week, shorting 10-year U.S. Treasuries versus 10-year German Bunds. The State Of The "QE5" The current coordinated cyclical upturn in global growth, combined with booming equity and credit markets, is forcing central bankers to contemplate shifting to a less dovish monetary policy stance. Only the Fed and the Bank of Canada have actually raised interest rates since the oil-driven deflation scare of 2014/15. Yet policymakers in regions that have undertaken asset purchase programs - the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K., Japan and Sweden which we will call the "QE5"- also must consider policy moves that will impact the future size, and composition, of central bank balance sheets. The sums involved are enormous and will have major implications for financial markets. In Table 1, we present data first published in the 2017 BIS Annual Report published in late June (that we have since updated ourselves), showing the details of the QE5's balance sheets.2 A few numbers stand out from the table: Table 1The State Of The "QES" Central Bank Balance Sheets The Fed owns 13% of U.S. general government debt, with an average maturity of 8.0 years; 43% of the holdings mature within two years The BoJ owns 40% of Japanese general government debt, with an average maturity of 6.9 years; 49% of the holdings mature within two years The Bank of England owns 25% of U.K. general government debt, with an average maturity of 12.0 years; 20% of the holdings mature within two years The Riksbank owns 15% of Swedish general government debt, with an average maturity of 5.0 years; 37% of the holdings mature within two years The ECB owns 17% of Euro Area general government debt, with an average maturity of 8.0 years; the specific maturity structure is not publically known, however, as the ECB does not provide the same level of detail on its bond holdings as the other QE5 central banks. It is clear from the data that the Fed essentially has little choice but to begin the process of letting bonds run off its balance sheet, given that nearly half of its holdings will mature by 2019. With the U.S. economy at full employment, there is little need for the Fed to continue sending an unnecessarily dovish message by rolling over its bond holdings and maintaining such a large balance sheet. Similar arguments can be made for the Bank of England and the Riksbank, with both the U.K. and Sweden at full employment and a large share of bond holdings set to mature within two years. Chart 6BoJ Will Peg JGB Yields And Hope ##br##For A Weaker Yen Japan is a unique case, as always. With the economy still struggling to avoid deflation, even with an unemployment rate below 3%, the BoJ must maintain a hyper-easy monetary policy to keep the yen weak enough to generate some imported inflation (Chart 6). Yet the sheer size of its balance sheet, and its bond holdings, makes it increasingly difficult to roll over all of its maturing debt without severely impairing liquidity in the JGB market. Thus, it is no surprise that the BoJ has chosen to shift to a "yield curve" target that aims to peg the benchmark 10-year JGB yield at 0% - a policy which, presumably, would entail only buying bonds when there is upward pressure on yields from growth and inflation. The BoJ has already "tapered" to an annualized rate of bond buying of 70 trillion yen in 2017 - below the central bank's official 80 trillion yen per year target - and even slower amounts of buying could occur in the next couple of years as the maturing bonds in the BoJ's portfolio are not fully replaced. Which brings us to the ECB. The current economic expansion has been impressive in its scope and breadth, with even perpetual laggards like Italy enjoying a solid cyclical upturn. Although inflation remains below the ECB's 2% target, core inflation has clearly bottomed out and is even slowly accelerating in some countries, like Germany and Spain (Chart 7). The central bank has been sending out signals that an adjustment in its monetary policy settings will likely be needed soon. The markets have interpreted this as a sign that the ECB will announce a tapering of its asset purchases in 2018. The ECB has to be a little surprised, and perhaps nervous, over the market reaction to this shift in its communication with the markets. Longer-term bond yields rose sharply, with the benchmark 10-year German Bund more than doubling in a matter of weeks in late June and early July. The central bank has been clear in stating that no change in short-term interest rates is imminent, and there has been very little movement in shorter maturity bond yields. Yet the euro has appreciated 5% since Mario Draghi's Portugal speech on June 26th, following the rise in long-term bond yields rather than the typical short-rate moves that guide currency fluctuations (Chart 8). Chart 7The Case For A Less Accommodative ECB Chart 8Could A Stronger Euro Delay The Taper? The surge in the euro has largely been due to capital inflows by global investors chasing the improving growth in the Euro Area, combined with some short covering of the large short positioning on the currency from earlier this year. Without the support of actual interest rate hikes that more sustainable boost the attractiveness of the currency, additional gains in the euro may be hard to come by - especially if the Fed soon shifts back to a more hawkish stance, as we discussed earlier in this report. As long as the rising euro does not materially impact broader Euro Area financial conditions through falling equity prices or wider corporate credit spreads, the ECB can continue on a path towards signaling a slower pace of asset purchases next year. They essentially have no choice on that front, given the approaching constraints on its bond buying program. The ECB has set internal rules that its asset purchases must: a) be allocated across the Euro Area countries according to the weights of the ECB "Capital Key"; and b) not result in the ECB owning more than 33% of any single countries stock of government debt. Following the first rule means buying far more German and French debt than Spanish or Austrian debt. Yet if they continue to follow the first rule, the second rule will be violated for some countries, most notably Germany. In Chart 9, we show the share of government bonds owned by the ECB for Germany, France, Italy and Spain. We also show projections for the ownership shares based on four scenarios for the pace of ECB asset purchases in 2018. If the ECB was to maintain the current €60bn/month rate of buying, then the 33% threshold for Germany would be breached next year (the green dotted line in the top panel) and the limit would almost be reached for Spain (the green dotted line in the bottom panel). Given these projections, it is perhaps no surprise that the ECB is sending signals about a taper even with inflation still south of the 2% ECB target. The ECB has already starting altering the composition of its monthly asset purchases, buying a lower share of German bonds between April and June, while buying a larger share of French and Italian bonds in excess of the Capital Key limits (Chart 10). To continue to do this would invite potential political criticism of the ECB's policies from Germany and other "hard money" countries in the Euro Area that do not wish to subsidize the high deficit governments. Chart 9ECB Holdings Of German Debt ##br##Approaching Limits Chart 10This Is Politically Unsustainable For that reason, we consider it to be very unlikely that the ECB will maintain the same level of bond purchases next year, but while also moving away from the Capital Key as the weighting scheme. The single country issuer limit could be raised from 33%, but this is also not a sustainable solution as it would potentially create the same problems faced by the other QE5 countries where the central bank ends up absorbing increasing shares of new government bond issuance, impairing market liquidity. We see the ECB as having no choice but to reduce the pace of asset purchases next year. We expect a true taper announcement next month that sets a date when the pace of buying goes to zero. The most "dovish" decision we can envision is a reduction in the pace of buying to €40bn/month that is maintained for all of 2018. This would be an identical move to the decision made last December, but even this would result in the ECB coming very close to the 33% issuer limit for Germany (the black dotted line in the top panel of Chart 9). Net-net, we see the ECB buying fewer Euro Area government bonds in 2018, no matter what. This will continue to put a rising floor underneath bond yields, with risks of bigger increases if inflation begins to accelerate in line with the ECB's projections. Bottom Line: Central banks with large amounts of maturing bonds on their balance sheets, like the Fed and the Bank of Japan, have had no choice but to signal a slower pace of future bond buying. The ECB is a similar boat, as its holdings of German debt approach issuer limits in the ECB portfolio. A slower pace of ECB bond buying is certain in 2018, to the detriment of European government bond market performance. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The Fed targets a growth rate of 2% on the headline Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) deflator, but the inflation rate reference in TIPS pricing is the growth of the headline Consumer Price Index (CPI). Given that the spread between headline PCE and headline CPI inflation has averaged around 50bps in recent years, a CPI inflation rate of 2.5% would be consistent with the Fed's stated inflation target. 2 http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2017e4.pdf Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

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

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

Highlights Chart I-1The Economy Has Stabilized##br## But Has Not Recovered Brazil desperately needs to boost nominal growth to avoid public debt spiraling out of control1. We do not think it is possible without resorting to meaningful currency depreciation and much lower interest rates. The Brazilian economy has stabilized, but it has not yet recovered (Chart I-1). To stage a sustainable recovery, much easier monetary conditions and fiscal stance are required. However, monetary conditions remain tight and fiscal policy is tightening: Feature Real interest rates are about 5.5-6% - as high as they were before the current rate-cut cycle commenced (Chart I-2). The Brazilian central bank's aggressive rate cuts have largely matched the drop in the inflation rate, keeping real borrowing costs elevated. Besides, household debt servicing costs (interest payments and principal) are high, above 20% of disposable income (Chart I-3) and employment conditions remain extremely poor. In this environment, households will not be inclined to expand leverage considerably. The Brazilian real is not cheap. In fact, the real effective exchange rate is slightly above its fair value (Chart I-4). Nominal GDP growth is currently running close to 4%, while the government's budget assumption for nominal GDP growth in 2017 is 5-5.5%. Not surprisingly, government revenues are disappointing and the budget deficit is above its target (Chart I-5). Furthermore, the improvement in government revenues in the past 12 months has been due to one-off measures such as non-recurring privatization revenue, repayment by the national development bank (BNDES) of 100 billion BRL and tax amnesty/capital repatriation programs that will not be repeated. In brief, more tax hikes are needed to achieve revenue targets but higher taxes will in turn jeopardize the economic revival. Taxes on fuel have been raised in recent weeks. Chart I-2Interest Rates Are##br## Still Very High Chart I-3Household Debt Servicing##br## Ratio Has Not Yet Declined Chart I-4The Real Is Not Cheap Chart I-5Brazil: No Improvement In Fiscal Accounts Given that fiscal policy is straightjacketed by high and rapidly rising public debt levels, the onus of boosting nominal growth is squarely on the central bank. Not only have the monetary authorities cut interest rates, they have also been monetizing government debt. Chart I-6 shows that the central bank's holdings of government securities have skyrocketed, i.e., the central bank has bought BRL531 billion of government paper since January 2015. While it has partially sterilized its debt monetization by using these securities as reverse repos with banks, the amount of high-powered money/liquidity withdrawal via repos has been much smaller than the central bank's liquidity injections. Chart I-6aBrazil: Central Bank Has##br## Been Monetizing Public Debt... Chart I-6b...And Sterilizing It ##br##Only Partially This has helped liquidity in the banking system considerably, and smoothed the banking system adjustment at a time of surging non-performing loans. However, it has not generated enough purchasing power in the economy to boost nominal growth. Notably, broad money growth is slowing (Chart I-7). Even though bank loan growth may have troughed (Chart I-7, bottom panel), it is unlikely to recover strongly due to high real rates. Broad money captures the stance of credit and fiscal policies because broad money reflects purchasing power created by commercial banks and central bank when lending to and buying government bonds from non-banks. Remarkably, the broad money impulse - which is the second derivative of outstanding broad money - points to weakness in nominal GDP growth (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Brazil: Broad Money##br## And Bank Loans Chart I-8Broad Money And Terms Of Trade Point ##br## To Weaker Nominal Growth In addition, nominal GDP growth correlates with terms of trade, and the latter has also relapsed (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Furthermore, high-frequency data reveal that manufacturing PMI and consumer confidence have also rolled over lately, pointing to stalling improvement in both the manufacturing sector and consumer spending (Chart I-9). All in all, policymakers are behind the curve. The central bank could continue cutting interest rates, increase its purchases of government bonds, and also use other measures to inject more money – both high-powered money and broad money – into circulation. If they do so, it will eventually help the economy recover and boost inflation, yet it is bearish for the exchange rate. However, if the exchange rate relapses on its own (due to other factors), that will limit the authorities' ability to reduce interest rates further. This is on top of heightened political uncertainty that does not bode well for Brazilian financial markets. In a nutshell, Brazil needs to engineer currency depreciation to boost nominal growth and make public debt sustainable. This is true especially as Argentina is opting to keep its currency competitive, and it will be even more critical if commodities prices relapse, as we expect (Chart I-10). Provided the share of foreign currency public debt is low, reflating via currency depreciation is the least painful way out for Brazil. Bottom Line: Policymakers are desperate to boost nominal growth to stabilize public debt. Yet, in our opinion, nominal growth will not improve without further sizable rate cuts and meaningful currency depreciation. Eventually, policymakers will allow the BRL to depreciate 20%-plus, which will hurt foreign investments in local asset markets. We remain negative on/underweight Brazil equities, currency and sovereign debt. That said, we recommend fixed-income investors to bet on the 3/1-year yield curve flattening: receive 3-year / pay 1-year swap rate (Chart I-11). Chart I-9High-Frequency Indicators:##br## Improvement Has Stalled Chart I-10Other Headwinds##br## For BRL Chart I-11A New Trade: ##br## Bet On 3/1-Year Yield Curve Flattening Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Has Brazil Achieved Escape Velocity?", dated February 8, 2017, link available on page 11 - we argued that Brazil's public debt dynamics is unsustainable without strong nominal growth and/or social security reforms. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature Recommended Allocation When Central Banks Turn Hawkish It seems almost as though, when central bank governors gathered in Portugal for the ECB's annual confab in late June, they agreed to start sounding more hawkish. ECB President Mario Draghi's speech included the line: "The threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play." Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz went ahead and on July 12 announced Canada's first rate hike in seven years. Indeed, BCA's Central Bank Monitors (Chart 1) suggest that, with the exceptions of Japan and possibly the euro area, all major developed central banks need to tighten monetary policy. Does this matter for risk assets, such as equities? Historical evidence suggests not, as long as the central bank is tightening because it is confident about the outlook for growth and unconcerned about financial risks (rather than, for example, reacting to a sharp rise in inflation). Equity markets typically move up in the early stages of a tightening cycle (Chart 2); it is only when the central bank tightens excessively (usually later in the cycle) that risk assets start to anticipate that this will trigger a recession. Even in the U.S. which, after four rate hikes since December 2015, is the furthest advanced in tightening, the real effective Fed Funds Rate is still -0.3%, below the 0.3% that the Fed believes to be the neutral real rate at the moment (Chart 3). The Fed expects the neutral rate to rise to 1% in the longer run. Chart 1Most Central Banks Need To Tighten Chart 2Equities Usually Rise During Rate Hike Cycle Chart 3Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative But the order in which central banks tighten will be a major driver of currencies (as has been clear with the sharp appreciation of the CAD and AUD in recent weeks). Our current asset recommendations are based on the belief that the market has become too complacent about the speed at which the Fed will tighten (with futures pricing only 26 bp of hikes over the next 12 months), and too nervous about the ECB (Chart 4). As the market starts to understand that the Fed has fallen a little behind the curve, and that the ECB will remain cautious (given continuing weakness in peripheral economies, and a lack of underlying inflationary pressures), we expect to see the dollar begin to appreciate again. A key to all this is whether the recent softness in U.S. inflation data (core PCE inflation has fallen from 1.8% YoY to 1.4% since January) proves to be temporary. A rebound in inflation would allow the Fed to continue to hike without bringing the real rate close to the neutral level yet. It is worth remembering that inflation is a lagging indicator: the recent weakness is largely a reflection of last year's soggy GDP growth (Chart 5), as well as some transitory technical factors (particularly drug and wireless data prices). The recent dollar depreciation should also boost inflation via the import price channel over the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 4Markets Views On Fed And ECB Have Diverged Chart 5Inflation Lags GDP Growth Chart 6Dollar Deprecation Will Raise Prices However, with global equities having produced a total return of 35% since their recent bottom in February last year, and 17% year to date, valuations are unattractive and, on some measures, sentiment is quite optimistic (Chart 7). What catalysts are there left to give risk assets further upside? We see two. First, earnings. The Q2 U.S. results season has seen 77% of S&P 500 companies surprising on the upside at the sales line, with EPS rising 7% compared to the same quarter in 2016. Most of our indicators suggest that earnings have further to rise this year (Chart 8), yet the consensus EPS forecast for 2017 as a whole remains at just over 10%, where it has been since January. Strong earnings momentum is likely to remain a positive at least through the end of the year. Second, tax cuts. Our Geopolitical Strategy service1 remains optimistic that the U.S. Congress will pass tax legislation to come into effect in early 2018. The failure to repeal Obamacare means that the Republican Party will need a big legislative win going into the mid-term elections in November 2017. Tax cuts (which the market is no longer pricing in - Chart 9) is one policy on which there is little disagreement within the GOP. Chart 7Are Investors Getting Too Optimistic? Chart 8Earnings Can Still Surprise On Upside Chart 9No One Expects Tax Cuts Any More None of the recession indicators we highlighted in our most recent Quarterly 2 (global PMIs, the shape of the yield curve, or credit spreads) are pointing to a downturn in the next 12 months. So, given the environment described above, we are happy to remain overweight equities versus bonds, and to maintain our pro-risk and pro-cyclical tilts. But we continue to warn of the risk of a recession in 2019 - probably triggered by the Fed needing to tighten more aggressively - and might look to lower our risk profile in the first half of next year. Equities: We favor DM equities over EM. An appreciating dollar, rising interest rates, weak industrial metals prices this year and uncertain growth prospects for China all represent headwinds for EM equities. Our strong dollar view points to an overweight in U.S. equities in USD terms but, in local currencies, our preference is for euro area and Japanese equities. Both are relatively high-beta, have strongly cyclical earnings momentum, and central banks that are likely to stay dovish. In Japan, the falling popularity rating of the Abe administration might compel it to ramp up fiscal spending to boost the economy, which would help the Bank of Japan in its efforts to rekindle inflation. Chart 10Everyone Has Turned Bullish On The Euro Fixed Income: Our macro outlook, with faster rate hikes and rebounding inflation in the U.S., is very negative for rates. We are underweight government bonds, short duration and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. Valuations in credit are no longer particularly attractive but, with a 100 bp spread for U.S. investment grade bonds and a 230 bp default-adjusted spread for high-yield, returns are likely to be satisfactory as long as the economic cycle continues to improve. Currencies: Our fundamental view of the dollar is that relative monetary policy and interest rates point to further appreciation, especially against the yen and euro. The timing of the dollar's rebound, though, is harder to pinpoint. The euro could rise further over the next couple of months. However, given speculators' large net long positions in the euro - a big turnaround from the start of the year (Chart 10) - the likely announcement by the ECB in September or October of a reduction in its asset purchases might be the catalyst for a reversal (as a classic "buy the news, sell the rumor" event), particularly if Mario Draghi dresses it up as a "dovish tapering." Commodities: Oil inventories have begun to draw down in line with our expectations (Chart 11). Continued discipline by OPEC producers until next March, combined with a slowdown in the growth of U.S. shale production (reflecting the weaker crude price this year) should bring inventories down further (despite production increases in such countries as Libya and Iran), and push the price of WTI above $55 a barrel by year end. Industrial commodity prices have rebounded somewhat in the past six weeks, mainly on the back of moderately brighter economic data out of China (Chart 12). But, given uncertain prospects about the sustainability of this growth, especially beyond the Communist Party Congress in the fall, and amid some signs of weakness in Chinese monetary and credit aggregates,3 we remain cautious about the outlook for metals prices over the next 12 months. Chart 11Oil Inventories Will Draw Down Further in Chart 12Tick-Up In Chinese Data? Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bca.research.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Review," dated July 3, 2107, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

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

Highlights Major central banks outside the U.S. have fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Pipeline inflation pressures have yet to show up at the consumer price level outside of the U.K. Most central bankers argue that temporary factors are to blame, but longer-lasting forces could be at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. However, this is not confirmed in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low and we do not believe it is due to mismeasurement. The Phillips curve is not dead. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus. The real fed funds rate is not far from the neutral short-term rate, but it is still well below the Fed's estimate of the long-run neutral rate. Market expectations for the Fed are far too complacent; keep duration short. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts. Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, given that unemployment is on course to reach the lowest level since 2000. This would force the Fed to act more aggressively, possibly triggering a recession in 2019. The peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is not behind us, implying that recent dollar weakness will reverse. However, the next dollar upleg has been delayed. Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus this year have not weighed on equities, in part because of a solid earnings backdrop. Global EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production. In the U.S., results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Overall earnings growth should peak above our 20% target later this year. It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. Expect to downgrade stocks in the first half of 2018. Corporate bonds are also benefiting from the robust profit backdrop. Balance sheet health continues to deteriorate, but the spark is missing for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Feature Chart I-1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets ##br##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Major central banks outside the U.S. fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling a recalibration of monetary policy at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking in late June (Chart I-1). The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), Bank of Canada (BoC) and Swedish Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, warning that the diminished threat of deflation has reduced the need for ultra-stimulative policies. The BoC quickly followed up in July with a rate hike and a warning of more to come. The central bank now expects the economy to reach full employment and hit the inflation target by mid-2018, much earlier than previously expected. The Riksbank also backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The ECB's shift in stance was evident even before its Forum meeting, when President Draghi gave a glowing description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. The labor market is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. We have not forgotten about Europe's structural problems or the inherent contradictions of the single currency. Banks are still laden with bad debt (although the recapitalization of Italian banks has gone well so far). Nonetheless, from a cyclical economic standpoint, solid momentum this year will allow Draghi to scale back the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary stance by tapering its asset purchase program early in 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank (CB) Monitors, which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart I-2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing was the only game in town, but they are becoming relevant again as more policymakers consider their exit strategy. All of our CB Monitors are currently in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan and the Eurozone (although even those are close to the zero line). The Monitors have been rising due to both their growth and underlying inflation components. Another tick higher in PMI's for the advanced economies in July underscored that the rebound in industrial production is continuing (Chart I-3). Our short-term forecasting models, which include both hard and soft data, point to stronger growth in the major countries in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart I-3Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact On the inflation side, our pipeline indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart I-5). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart I-4Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Chart I-5Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure These pipeline pressures have yet to show up at the consumer level. Most central bankers argue that temporary special factors are to blame, but many investors are wondering if longer-lasting forces are at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. Amazon, Uber, robotics and shale oil production are just a few examples. If this is the main story, then the inability for central banks to reach their inflation targets is a "good thing" because it reflects the adaptation of game-changing new technology. There is no doubt that important strides are being made in certain areas where new technologies are clearly driving prices down. The problem is that, at the macro level, it is not showing up in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low across the major countries and we do not believe it is simply due to mismeasurement. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy2 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, it appears that productivity is over-estimated in some industries. It is also important to keep in mind that technological change is nothing new. There is a vigorous debate in academic circles on whether today's new technologies are anywhere near as positive as previous ones like indoor plumbing, electricity, the internal combustion engine and the internet. We are wowed by today's new gizmos, but they are not as transformative as previous innovations. While productivity is surging in some high-profile firms, studies show that there is a long tail of low-productivity companies that drag down the average. A full discussion is beyond the scope of this report and more research needs to be done, but we are not of the view that technology and productivity preclude rising inflation. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus in the coming months and quarters. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? As with other central banks, the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation for now. Yellen's Congressional testimony did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." Chart I-6Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed The Fed believes there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is currently close to the short-term neutral level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections reveals what the FOMC thinks is the neutral long-term real fed funds rate; the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. The Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart I-6 shows this estimate of the neutral rate, called R-star, alongside the real federal funds rate that is calculated using 12-month trailing core PCE. The resulting real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months due to both three Fed rate hikes and a decline in inflation. If the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays put, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 close to zero, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. The implication is that the real fed funds rate is not far from R-star, but the nominal rate will have to rise a long way before the real rate reaches the Fed's estimate of the long-term neutral rate. Investors simply don't believe Fed policymakers. According to the bond market, the real fed funds rate will not shift into positive territory until 2021 (see real forward OIS line in Chart I-6). We think this is far too complacent. U.S. Health Care Reform: RIP The speed at which short-term rates converge with the long-run neutral rate will depend importantly on the path of fiscal policy. The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the investors to doubt the prospect for (stimulative) tax cuts. This may be premature. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 22 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The Senate bill would have also led to substantial cuts to Medicaid relative to existing law, as well as deep cuts to insurance subsidies for many poor and middle-class families. Many of these voters came out in support of Trump last year. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts anyway. The chances for broad tax reform have certainly diminished, since that will be just as difficult to get passed as healthcare reform. The GOP also wanted to use the roughly $200 billion in savings from healthcare reform to fund reduced tax rates. However, tax cuts are something that all Republicans can easily agree too, and they will need to show a legislative victory ahead of next year's mid-term elections. The difficulty will be how to pay for these cuts. We expect them to be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This would generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. Sub-4% U.S. Unemployment Rate Followed By Recession? Chart I-7Inside The Fed's Forecasts Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, which may have already fallen behind the curve. The unemployment rate is below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level, and it will continue to erode unless productivity picks up soon. We backed out the productivity growth rate implied by the Fed's latest Summary of Economic Projections, given its assumption that real GDP growth will be roughly 2% over the next couple of years and that the unemployment rate will stabilize near the current level. This combination implies that productivity growth will accelerate from the average rate observed so far in this expansion (0.7%) to about 1%, which is consistent with monthly payrolls of 135,000 assuming real GDP growth of 2% (Chart I-7). If we instead assume that productivity does not accelerate (and real GDP growth is 2%), then payrolls must jump to 160,000 and the unemployment rate would fall below 4% next year. The implication is that the unemployment rate is likely to soon reach levels not seen since 2000, which would force the FOMC to tighten more aggressively. The Fed would hope for a soft landing as it tries to nudge the unemployment rate higher, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. For this year, we expect the Fed to begin balance sheet runoff in the autumn, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. A rebound in oil prices would help the Fed reach its inflation goal, even though energy prices affect the headline by more than the core rate. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih indicated at a recent press conference in St. Petersburg that no changes are presently needed to the production deal under which OPEC and non-OPEC producers pledged to remove 1.8mn b/d from the market. The Saudi energy minister's remarks leave open the possibility of deeper cuts later this year if global inventories do not draw fast enough, or for the cuts to be extended beyond March 2018 if officials are not satisfied with progress on the storage front. We still believe they are capable of meeting this goal, despite rising shale production. Chart I-8Forecast Of Oil Inventories Our commodity strategists expect OECD oil inventories to reach their five-year average level by year-end or early 2018 Q1 (Chart I-8). In the absence of additional cuts, the five-year average level of OECD inventories will be higher than we estimated earlier this year, indicating that our expectation for the overall inventory drawdown later this year has been trimmed. Still, our oil strategists believe the inventory drawdowns will be sufficient to push WTI above the mid-$50s by year-end. If this forecast pans out, rising oil prices will push up headline inflation and inflation expectations in the major advanced economies. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Duration should be kept short within global fixed income portfolios. In terms of country allocation, our global fixed income strategists have downgraded the Eurozone government bond market to underweight, joining the Treasury allocation, in light of the pending ECB tapering announcement that could place more upward pressure on yields. This was offset by upgrading Japan to maximum overweight. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached Chart I-9Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate The change in tone by central bankers outside the U.S. has weighted heavily on the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar and the Euro have been particularly strong. Investors have apparently decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but rate hikes are a long way off because there remains a substantial amount of economic slack in the Eurozone. Laubach and Williams estimate R-star in the Eurozone to be close to zero, which is 50 basis points below the U.S. neutral rate (Chart I-9). The difference is related to slower potential growth and greater unemployment. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008, and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany. The current real short-term rate is about -1%. We expect U.S. R-star to rise in absolute terms and relative to the neutral rate in the Eurozone because the U.S. is further advanced in the economic expansion. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate because the Bank of Japan is a long way from raising or abandoning its 10-year bond yield peg. Japanese core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year. The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. The major exception to our "strong dollar" call is the Canadian loonie, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. We also like the Aussie dollar, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up as we expect. Stocks Get A Free Pass For Now Chart I-10Global EPS And Industrial Production Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus have weighed on both U.S. Treasury yields and the dollar, but the equity market has taken the news in stride. Are equity investors simply in denial? We do not think so. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" for now because earnings have been supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth of around 2%, and low bond yields has been bullish for stocks so far in this expansion. At the global level, EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production, which is a good proxy for top line growth (Chart I-10). Orders and production for capital goods in the major advanced economies have been particularly strong in recent months. The global operating margin flattened off last month according to IBES data, although margins continued to firm in the U.S. and Europe (Chart I-11). The profit acceleration is widespread across these three economies in the Basic Materials and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Industrials, Energy, Health Care and Consumer Staples are also performing well in most cases. Telecom is the weak spot. Our sector profit diffusion indexes paint an upbeat picture for the near term (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Operating Margins On The Rise Chart I-12Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish In the U.S., the second quarter earnings season is off to a good start. Results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. We believe that U.S. margins are in a secular decline, but they are in the midst of a counter-trend rally that will last for the rest of this year. Using blended results for the second quarter, trailing S&P 500 EPS growth hit 18½% on a 4-quarter moving total basis (Chart I-13). The acceleration in earnings is impressive even after excluding the Energy sector. We projected early this year that EPS growth would peak at around 20%4 by year end, but it appears that earnings will overshoot that level. Chart I-13Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. We are expecting to scale back our overweight equity recommendation sometime in the first half of 2018, although the global rally could be extended by constructive earnings data in Europe and Japan. The earnings recovery in both economies is behind the U.S., such that peak growth will come later in 2018. There is also more room for margins to expand in Europe than in the U.S. The relative earnings cycle is one of the reasons why we continue to favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. in local currency terms. Japanese stocks are also cheap to the U.S. based on our top-down valuation indicator (Chart I-14). European stocks are not far from fair value relative to the U.S., after adjusting for the fact that Europe trades structurally on the cheap side. The message from our top-down valuation indicator for European stocks is confirmed when using the bottom-up information contained in the new BCA Equity Trading Strategy platform. The Special Report beginning on page 20 describes a bottom-up valuation measure that we will use in conjunction with our top-down (index-based) measures. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Healthy EPS growth momentum is also constructive for corporate bonds, although overall balance sheet health continues to erode in the U.S. The release of the U.S. Flow of Funds data allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart I-15). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." Chart I-14Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Chart I-15Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years, calling almost all major turning points in advance. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. It also requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to ramp up, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist normally occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. It will be some time before U.S. short-term interest rates reach restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart I-16 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, eased in the fourth quarter 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 (Chart I-17). Ratings migration has also improved (i.e. moderating net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The diminished appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart I-16Still Some Value In ##br##High-Yield Corporates Chart I-17Net Transfers To Shareholders ##br##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle. Value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Investment Conclusions A key change in the global financial landscape over the past month is a signal from central banks that they see the need for policy recalibration. Policymakers view sub-target inflation as temporary, and some are concerned that low interest rates could contribute to the formation of financial market bubbles. The bond market remains skeptical, given persistent inflation undershoots and growing anecdotal evidence that new technologies are very deflationary. It would be extremely bullish for stocks if these new technologies were indeed boosting the supply side of the economy at a faster pace than the official data suggest. Robust advances in output-per-worker would allow profits to grow quickly, and would provide the economy more breathing space before hitting inflationary capacity limits (keeping the bond vigilantes at bay). We acknowledge that there are important technological breakthroughs being made, but we do not see any evidence that this is occurring on a widespread basis sufficient to "move the dial" in terms of overall productivity growth. Indeed, the stagnation of middle class personal income is consistent with a poor productivity backdrop. Chart I-18 highlights that "creative destruction" is in a long-term bear market. Chart I-18Less Creative Destruction That said, the equity market is benefiting from the mini-cycle in corporate profits, which are still recovering from the earnings recession in 2015/early 2016. We expect the recovery to be complete by early 2018, which will set the stage for a substantial slowdown in EPS growth next year. It won't be a disaster, absent a recession, but demanding valuations suggest that the market could struggle to make headway through next year. We expect to trim exposure sometime in the first half of 2018. To time the exit, we will watch for a roll-over in the growth rate of S&P 500 EPS on a 4-quarter moving total basis. Investors should look for a peak in industrial production growth as a warnings sign for profits. We are also watching for a contraction in excess money, which we define as M2 divided by nominal GDP. Finally, a rise in core PCE inflation to 2% would be a signal that the Fed is about to ramp up interest rates. For now, remain overweight equities relative to bonds and cash. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. We are comfortable with our pro-risk recommendations and our below-benchmark duration stance. Unfortunately, that can't be said of our bullish U.S. dollar and oil price house views. Both are controversial calls among our strategists. As for oil, supply and demand are finely balanced and our positive view hinges importantly on OPEC agreeing to more production cuts. The obvious risk is that these cuts do not materialize. The dollar call has gone against us as the latest signs of improving global growth momentum have admittedly been outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in a political morass, which delays the prospect of fiscal stimulus. This is not to say that U.S. growth will slow. Rather, the growth acceleration may fall short of the high expectations following last November's election. We continue to believe that the market is too complacent on the pace of Fed rate hikes in the coming quarters. An upward adjustment in rate expectations should push the dollar higher on a trade-weighted basis, as outlined above. Nonetheless, this shift will require higher U.S. inflation, the timing of which is highly uncertain. We remain dollar bulls on a 12-month horizon, but we are stepping aside and calling for a trading range in the next three months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 27, 2017 Next Report: August 31, 2017 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up," dated July 4, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Kathryn Holston, Thomas Laubach, and John C. Williams "Measuring The Natural Rates Of Interest: International Trends And Determinants," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2016-11 (December 2016). 4 Calculated as a year-over-year growth rate of a 4-quarter moving total of S&P data. II. The BCA ETS Trading Platform Approach To Valuing Eurozone Stocks The performance of European stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal in the post-Lehman period. However, the Eurozone economy is performing impressively, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This points to a period of outperformance for Eurozone stocks, at least in local currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data suggest that Eurozone stocks are cheap to the U.S. Nonetheless, the European market almost always trades at a discount, due to persistent lackluster profit performance. In Part II of our series on valuation, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can be confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. Valuation alone does not justify overweight Eurozone positions at the moment, although we like the market for other reasons. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. Total returns in the European equity market have bounced relative to the U.S. since 2016 in both local-currency and common currency terms (Chart II-1). However, this has offset only a tiny fraction of the dismal underperformance since 2007. In local currencies, the relative EMU/U.S. total return index is still close to its lowest level since the late 1970s. Compared with the pre-Lehman peak, the U.S. total return index is more than 96% higher according to Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only now getting back to the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart II-2). Chart II-1EMU Stocks Lag Massively... Chart II-2...Due To Depressed Earnings The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share (EPS) generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-Lehman peak by about 19%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 48% below their peak (common currency). This reflects both a slower recovery in sales-per-share growth and lower profit margins. Operating margins in Europe have been on the upswing for a year, but are still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Margin outperformance in the U.S. is not a sector weighting story; in only 2 of 10 sectors do European operating margins exceed the U.S. The return-on-equity data tell a similar story. Nonetheless, a turning point may be at hand. Chart II-3Europe Trades At A Discount The Eurozone economy has been performing well, especially on a per-capita basis, and forward-looking indicators suggest that growth will remain above-trend for at least the next few quarters. U.S. profit margins have also been (temporarily) rising, but the Eurozone economy has more room to grow because there is still slack in the labor market. There is also more room for margins to rise in the Eurozone corporate sector than is the case in the U.S., where the profit cycle is further advanced. Traditional measures of value based on the MSCI indexes suggest that European stocks are on the cheap side. But are they really that cheap? Based on index data, Eurozone stocks trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart II-3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book (P/B). However, Eurozone stocks have almost always traded at a discount. There are many possible explanations as to why there is a persistent valuation gap between these two markets, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American stock valuations relative to Europe. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole were significantly more profitable even before the Great Financial Crisis (Chart II-3). U.S. companies also tend to have lower leverage and higher interest coverage. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. RoE and operating margins are lower in Europe even applying U.S. sector weights to the European market.1 Why corporate Europe has been a perennial profit under-achiever is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. Measuring Value In the first part of our two-part Special Report on valuation, published in July 2016, we took a top-down approach to determine whether Eurozone stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. A regression approach that factored in various profitability measures performed reasonably well, but the top-down "mechanical" approach that relied on a 5-year moving average provided the most profitable buy/sell signals historically. We approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective in Part II of our series, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top-decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology have outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year.2 The BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but we are interested in developing a valuation metric that provides valued added on its own and is at least as good as the top-down index-based measure developed in Part I. The five valuation measures in the ETS database are trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combine all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranks the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e. cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. Chart II-4 presents the resulting bottom-up indicator, along with our previously-published top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European stocks are cheap to the U.S., while it is the opposite for low readings. Chart II-4Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's causes major shifts in relative valuation among sectors and between the U.S. and Eurozone that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. We obtain a cleaner indicator when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local currency) excess returns over 3, 6, 12 and 24-month horizon generated by (1) overweighting European stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Table II-1). Table II-1Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average The trading rule returns were best when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation were not as good, but still more than 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. Table II-1 also presents the trading rule's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. The batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 24 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The charts and tables in the Appendix present the results of the same analysis at the sector level. The results are equally as good as the aggregate valuation indicator, with a couple of exceptions. European stocks are cheap to the U.S. in the Energy, Financials, and Utilities sectors, while U.S. stocks offer better value in Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials and Technology. Materials, Real Estate, and Telecommunications are close to equally valued. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reach undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. In contrast, adding some information from the technical factors in the ETS model does add value, at least when using +/-1 standard deviations as the trigger point for trades (Chart II-5). Excess returns to the trading rule rise significantly when the medium-term momentum and long-term mean reversion factors are included in the valuation indicator (Table II-2). The batting average also improves. Chart II-5Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Table II-2Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Adding technical information does not improve the trading rule performance when +/-2 sigma is used as the trigger point. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Historical analysis using a trading rule demonstrates that the new bottom-up valuation indicator provides real value to investors. We would normally evaluate its track record using stretching analysis, where we use only the historical information available at each point in time when determining relative value. However, the relatively short history of the available data precludes this test because we need at least a few cycles to best gauge the underlying volatility in the data. Still, investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of the fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, the top-down version proposes that European stocks are somewhat cheap to the U.S., while the bottom-up indicator points to slight overvaluation. Considering the two together suggests that valuation is close enough to fair value that investors cannot make the decision on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be near extremes to be informative. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. at the moment, although not because of valuation. Rather, the Eurozone economy and corporate earnings have more room to grow because of lingering labor market slack. This also means that the ECB can keep rates glued to the zero bound for at least the next 18 months while the Fed hikes, which will place upward pressure on the dollar and downward pressure on the euro. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix: Trading Rule Returns By Sector Chart II-6, Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10, Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13, Chart II-14, Chart II-15, Chart II-16. Chart II-6Consumer Discretionary Chart II-7Consumer Staples Chart II-8Energy Chart II-9Financials Chart II-10Health Care Chart II-11Industrials Chart II-12Materials Chart II-13Real Estate Chart II-14Utilities Chart II-15Technology Chart II-16Telecommunication 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," December 2, 2015, available at ets.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks continue to outperform bonds against a constructive backdrop of improving global economic prospects and accelerating EPS growth, while low inflation is expected to keep central banks from tightening quickly. Our main equity and asset allocation indicators remain bullish for risk, with a few exceptions. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) jumped back to a 100% equity weighting in July. We introduced the RPI in last month's Special Report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The U.S. WTP remains bullish, but has topped out, suggesting that flows into the U.S. market are beginning to moderate. In contrast, the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway, although it has not yet shown up in terms of equity market outperformance versus the U.S. On the negative side, our Monetary Indicator last month fell a little further below the zero line and our composite Technical Indicator appears to be rolling over; the latter generates a 'sell' signal when it drops below its 9-month moving average. Value is stretched, but our Valuation Indicator has not yet reached the +1 standard deviation level that indicates clear over-valuation. As highlighted in the Overview section, the U.S. and global earnings backdrop continues to support equity markets. Forward earnings estimates are in a steep uptrend, and the recent surge in the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index suggests that EPS growth will remain impressive for the remainder of the year. Bond valuation is largely unchanged from last month, sitting very close to fair value. We still believe that fair value is rising as economic headwinds fade. However, much depends on our forecast that core inflation in the major countries will grind higher in the coming months. Central banks stand ready to "remove the punchbowl" if they get the green light from inflation. The dollar's downdraft in July reduced some of its overvaluation based on purchasing power parity measures. The dollar appears less overvalued based on other measures. Our composite Technical Indicator has fallen hard, but has not reached oversold levels. This suggests that the dollar has more downside before it finds a bottom. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro TechnicalsChart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China