Consumer

Highlights Muni Credit Cycle: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. Issuance: State & local government investment spending will increase in 2017, as will muni issuance for new capital. Pensions: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. Election: Muni/Treasury yield ratios have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Feature The financial crisis marked a major inflection point in the municipal bond market. Not only did the economic fall-out from the housing crash lead to historically large state & local government budget gaps, but the end of bond insurance and a growing realization that municipal default is possible have focused investor attention on credit quality more than ever before. In this Special Report we zero-in on the Municipal/Treasury (M/T) yield ratio.1 We identify its major short-run and long-run drivers, and assess where it is headed in the context of the municipal bond credit cycle. The Longer-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios An important input to our understanding of the municipal credit cycle is our Muni Health Monitor (MHM). The MHM is a composite of eight indicators of state & local government budget health. Full details of the indicator and its components can be found in the Appendix to this report. The MHM has an excellent track record of signaling the major inflection points in muni ratings migration (Chart 1). We observe that the MHM bottomed in 2006, one year before the previous trough in ratings migration. The MHM also crossed into "deteriorating health" territory six months before municipal downgrades started to outpace upgrades in 2008. More recently, the MHM crossed back into "improving health" territory in Q4 2012. Muni ratings migration also peaked in Q4 2012 and upgrades began outpacing downgrades in Q4 2014. Chart 1The Municipal Health Monitor Leads Ratings bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c1 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c1 We pay attention to the trends in muni ratings because ratings and state & local government net borrowing explain more than 50% of the variation in the average M/T yield ratio since 1997 (Chart 2). Further, increased investor focus on the creditworthiness of municipal issues has made the yield ratio even more responsive to ratings and net borrowing since the Great Recession. So where are we currently situated in the muni credit cycle? The MHM remains in "improving health" territory, but appears to have entered an extended bottoming-out phase. Given the re-leveraging that has already occurred in the corporate sector, it would be extremely unusual for the MHM to improve further during this cycle. In fact, our Corporate Health Monitor tends to lead the MHM by about two years (Chart 3). This squares with what we know about the behavior of state & local governments throughout the economic cycle. Chart 2The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated I bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c2 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c2 Chart 3The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II Typically, the corporate sector will increase debt loads when times are good and will then be forced to de-lever when the economy enters recession, profits contract and those debt loads become unsustainable. State & local government budget gaps, on the other hand, will tend to narrow during an economic recovery as rapid income growth translates into increased tax revenue. It is only during a recession that state & local government budget gaps widen, since tax revenue plummets while expenditure growth - particularly for social benefits - remains firm. The end result is that the municipal credit cycle tends to lag the corporate credit cycle. This is also apparent in the ratings data (Chart 3, bottom panel), which suggest that we should expect to see muni downgrades (and hence yield ratios) head higher near the end of next year. The typical lag between the corporate credit cycle and the municipal credit cycle suggests that M/T yield ratios should remain well behaved until late-2017, and then begin to move higher. However, the extraordinary length of the current economic recovery gives us some cause to believe that the lags in this cycle may be somewhat longer. We turn to a macro analysis of net state & local government borrowing to shed some further light on this issue. Net borrowing is simply the difference between revenues and expenditures. On the revenue side of the ledger, state & local governments have already seen a significant deceleration in tax receipts during the past year (Chart 4). Every source of tax revenue - except for property taxes - has slowed alongside what has been disappointing overall economic growth so far in 2016. While a return to the 10% revenue growth that was seen in the mid-2000s is unlikely, we expect most of the recent deceleration will soon be reversed. Aggregate weekly hours bounced sharply in September (Chart 5), and federal income tax withholdings also continue to grow rapidly. Both indicators suggest that income growth will be stronger during the next few months, which will support state & local tax receipts. On the expenditures side, while spending on social benefit programs has increased, state & local governments have largely dealt with budget gaps by cutting back severely on discretionary spending (Chart 6). Investment spending has also collapsed and, as a result, gross municipal bond issuance has been dominated by refinancing (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Chart 4S&L Government Revenue S&L Government Revenue S&L Government Revenue Chart 5Income Growth Will Rebound bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c5 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c5 Chart 6S&L Government Expenditures bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c6 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c6 This could all be about to change. Both U.S. Presidential candidates have prioritized infrastructure spending as part of their platforms. Hillary Clinton plans to increase infrastructure spending by $500 billion. This consists of $250 billion of federal infrastructure spending over the next five years and $25 billion of seed money to create a national infrastructure bank. The bank would also accept an additional $225 billion in direct loans. Clinton's plan would also bring back the Build America Bonds (BABs) program. Donald Trump has also expressed a desire to invest heavily in infrastructure, and has floated figures in the range of $1 trillion, although he has been less specific about the details. Historically, about 70% of public investment has occurred at the state & local government level (Chart 7). This suggests that if infrastructure spending became a priority it would lead to a large increase in state & local government investment and hence municipal bond issuance. However, with Clinton's plan it is still unclear whether the bulk of infrastructure spending would be financed through the Treasury market or the muni market. Certainly, to the extent that increased spending is financed through the BABs program, then tax-exempt muni issuance would not be impacted. In our view, state & local government investment spending will head higher in 2017 even without any support from the new President. The need for state & local governments to invest in infrastructure has been evident for some time, but only recently have budgets become healthy enough for governments to consider it. There is a strong correlation between state & local government investment spending and the net percentage of states with a total balance (general fund plus rainy day fund) that exceeds 5% of expenditures (Chart 8). This figure has just recently moved into positive territory and, not coincidentally, more than $200 billion worth of infrastructure spending will be on ballots requesting voter approval in November.2 Chart 7State & Local Government ##br##Drives Investment bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c7 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c7 Chart 8Healthy Enough##br## To Invest bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c8 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c8 The combination of resilient, but not surging, revenue growth and increased investment spending in 2017 is consistent with the idea that the muni credit cycle will follow the lead of the corporate cycle and start to turn near the end of next year. Bottom Line: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. The Pension Problem Of course, the elephant in the room with regards to the long-run outlook for municipal credit quality is pensions. So far pensions have only entered our discussion of the muni credit cycle tangentially, since the pension funded ratio is a component of the MHM (see Appendix). However, large unfunded pension liabilities - should they persist - have the potential to be severely destabilizing for the muni market at some point in the future. According to the U.S. National Accounts, aggregate defined benefit pension entitlements at the state & local government level total $5.6 trillion, only 65% of which are currently funded by assets. However, this aggregate figure masks large divergences between a few municipalities with unsustainable pension liabilities and the majority of municipalities where pension liabilities are probably manageable. Chart 9Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions In a recent report,3 the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that 36 states should be able to fund their existing liabilities by making annual payments that total less than 15% of revenue. However, five states - Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Kentucky - require annual payments in excess of 25% of revenue. The breakdown is found to be similar at the city level, where pension costs were found to be manageable for the majority of cities, although Chicago, Detroit, San Jose, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Wichita and Portland all face annual pension costs that exceed 40% of revenue. Unfortunately, while the pension situations of most municipalities are currently manageable, they are only likely to get worse. Changes in the aggregate pension funded ratio closely track returns from a portfolio that is 50% invested in the S&P 500 and 50% invested in the Barclays Treasury index (Chart 9). Based on current equity valuations, it is probably only reasonable to expect 6% annual nominal returns from the equity market during the next 10 years,4 and the 10-year Treasury yield suggests that 1.8% is a reasonable expectation for annual nominal Treasury returns. Taken together, annual nominal investment returns from a 50/50 portfolio during the next decade could be close to 4%, far below the historical average of 8.9% and also below the 7.6% average return assumed by state & local pension plans in 2014. The two main points are that: The pension problem is likely to get worse, not better Given that large under-funded pensions are concentrated in only a few states, inter-state muni allocations are very important On this second point, we observe that states with lower pension funded ratios have higher General Obligation (GO) bond yields (Chart 10), and also that not all of the difference is reflected in credit ratings. We ran a cross-sectional regression of GO bond yields against credit rating and found that a correlation remains between the residual from that regression and the pension funded ratio (Chart 11). In other words, credit rating does not adequately control for the risk presented by under-funded pensions. Chart 10Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Chart 11Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios: Controlling For Credit Rating Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Bottom Line: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. The Short-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios So far we have discussed the muni credit cycle and noted that M/T yield ratios should begin to move higher on a sustained basis at some point near the end of 2017. However, the near-term drivers of M/T yield ratios suggest that an overweight allocation to municipal bonds remains appropriate for the time being. We have found that the bulk of near-term volatility in M/T ratios can be explained by four factors (Chart 12): The Global Policy Uncertainty Index5 Gross municipal bond issuance Net municipal mutual fund flows Ratings migration The Brexit shock to policy uncertainty has now mostly been reversed. Meanwhile, our Muni Excess Supply Indicator (Chart 12, panel 4) shows that gross issuance has been outpacing fund inflows of late. This should put upward pressure on yield ratios, although this pressure has been largely offset by still supportive ratings migration (Chart 12, bottom panel). Considering all factors, this short-term model shows that the average M/T yield ratio is close to fair value. A reading close to fair value is consistent with muni returns that should exceed those from duration-equivalent Treasuries most of the time (Table 1), even before adjusting for the muni tax advantage. In fact, Table 1 shows that the odds of muni underperformance only really increase once the M/T ratio appears more than one half standard deviation expensive on our model. Chart 12A Short-Term Muni Model A Short-Term Muni Model A Short-Term Muni Model Table 1Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle The other near-term factor that supports a continued overweight allocation to municipal debt is the prospect of a Clinton victory in next month's election. Since the beginning of the year, the average M/T ratio has closely tracked the probability of a Trump election victory (Chart 13). The reasoning is entirely logical. Trump has promised large tax cuts for the highest earners. Such tax cuts would significantly de-value the tax advantage of municipal bonds and pressure yield ratios higher. In contrast, Clinton promises to raise taxes on high income individuals. This would make the tax advantage of municipal debt more valuable, and pressure yield ratios lower. Chart 13Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios The average M/T yield ratio has not yet discounted Trump's recent plunge in the polls. This argues for the maintenance of an overweight allocation to municipal debt in the near term. Bottom Line: M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued in the near-term, and have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The BCA Municipal Health Monitor The BCA Municipal Health Monitor is an equal-weighted composite of eight indicators meant to quantify trends in state & local government budget gaps and debt service capability. The components consist entirely of data that are publicly available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Association of State Budget Officers. The eight components are described below, and shown graphically in Charts A1 & A2. Chart A1Muni Health Monitor Components I Muni Health Monitor Components I Muni Health Monitor Components I Chart A2Muni Health Monitor Components II bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c15 bca.usbs_sr_2016_10_18_c15 Leverage: The ratio of total state & local government liabilities (excluding unfunded pension liabilities) to total financial assets. Interest Coverage: State & local government current budget surplus (excluding interest expenditures) divided by interest expenditures. The current surplus is calculated as the difference between current revenues and current expenditures (i.e. investment spending is excluded). Pension Funded Ratio: Total assets of state & local government pension funds divided by total pension liabilities. Revenue: State & local government current revenue in nominal terms, as a deviation from its 18-quarter trend. Surplus Margin: State & local government current budget surplus as a % of current revenue. Liquidity: State & local government total financial assets less short-term liabilities, as a % of total financial assets. Employment Growth: Year-over-year % change in state and local government employment. Total Balance: Aggregate state government total year-end balance. The total balance is the general fund balance plus the rainy day fund, as a % of total expenditures. 1 The average M/T yield ratio shown in this report is calculated by taking an equal-weighted average of M/T yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. For each maturity point the yield ratio is calculated as the ratio between the Bloomberg Fair Value Aaa Municipal bond yield and the Federal Reserve's constant maturity Treasury yield. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/mega-deals-lead-ballo… 3 http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/will-pensions-and-opebs-break-state-and-local-… 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Valuations: Risks And Opportunities", dated July 1, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The index was created by Professors Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis and is driven by the number of times terms related to economic and policy uncertainty are found in newspaper articles. Full details of the methodology are available at www.policyuncertainty.com

Highlights Our protector portfolio is a combination of assets that have a low or negative correlation with equities that give investors some downside protection. Replacing cash and/or Treasuries with our protector portfolio in 60-30-10 or 60-40 benchmark portfolios would have produced superior returns since 2011. We continue to advocate allocating investments to our protector portfolio in the near term as it represents an effective hedge against immediate risks such as a negative market reaction to the upcoming elections and/or disappointing third quarter profits. Feature Both equities and bonds are under pressure, as a higher likelihood of a December interest rate hike is beginning to be priced in at the same time as nervousness about Q3 earnings results has intensified. This confluence of factors - less liquidity and earnings disappointment - has been the central argument of our defensive portfolio stance for some time: any handoff from liquidity to growth would be shaky, and potentially premature. Indeed, as we wrote in the September 26 Weekly Report, liquidity conditions will largely remain favorable for risk assets for some time because even with a December rate hike, interest rates are well below equilibrium, i.e. are not restrictive. However, equity investors will suffer through bouts of earnings disappointments, similar to the chronic disappointment in GDP growth. As we show in Chart 1, throughout the economic recovery, expectations for economic growth have been revised lower and are only now finally in line with what we expect is close to reality. As highlighted in last week's report, investors' expectations about earnings are most likely to undergo the same fate because profit margins will remain a lasting headwind: investors have not yet adjusted to this new reality (Chart 2). That will hold equity gains to low single digits, at best. Chart 1Years Of One-Way (Down) Revisions bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c1 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c1 Chart 2Earnings Set To Disappoint? bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c2 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c2 Overall, our view is that the economic backdrop is stable as there are low odds of a recession-inducing monetary tightening occurring, and we do not see any other negative shocks that are concerning enough to trigger a recession. Still, above and beyond our worry about profit disappointments, many client queries are currently focused on U.S. election risks. On September 26, we warned of market volatility leading up to the election, since investors may continue to assign too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. However, we would expect markets to quickly recover - at least until Trump reveals his true policy colors. We took a page from the market reaction to Brexit as a possible guideline to the outcome of Trump winning the election, i.e. the election is ultimately won by a non-status quo candidate. Investors will recall that the post-vote U.K. equity market reaction to Brexit was short-lived but savage. However, the uncertainty around the upheaval of institutions and structures in the euro area and the U.K. are far greater than the election of a non-conformist U.S. President within an institutionally sound system with checks and balances. All of that said, we recognize that we could be wrong and that the U.S. election has taken over the pole position on investors' list of concerns. More specifically, investors are worried about negative financial market fallout from a Trump win.1 So, how should investors hedge the downside risk of these election results? And for that matter, what about other near-term risks? Protector Portfolio Explained This publication has been advocating for some time that investors hold some portion of their capital in a protector portfolio (currently a combination of TIPS, gold and the U.S. dollar). The goal is to find assets with a low or negative correlation to U.S. equities and offer a measure of protection against a steep selloff in stocks. As Chart 3 shows, a portfolio of 60/30/10, where 10% is placed in the protector portfolio, would have outperformed a traditional 60/30/10 allocation in which the 10% is held in straight cash since 2011 (in a ZIRP world). A 60/40 allocation where 40% is placed in the protector portfolio also beats a 60/40 stock/Treasury allocation since 2011. Chart 3Protector Portfolio Enhances Performance ##br## Since 2011 Protector Portfolio Enhances Performance Since 2011 Protector Portfolio Enhances Performance Since 2011 Chart 4Protector Components Are ##br## Negatively Correlated With S&P 500 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c4 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c4 The three assets included in our protector portfolio were chosen with specific risks in mind: USD: As the main global reserve currency, the U.S. dollar benefits when global risk aversion is on the rise. Admittedly, when fears have emanated from U.S. soil, the dollar has performed less well compared to other safe-haven assets, such as the Swiss franc and/or Swiss bonds. Nonetheless, for U.S. investors, investing in one's home currency can provide a natural hedge/advantage. In Chart 4, we show the one-year correlation between USD and S&P 500 equity returns. Since 2009, the correlation has been negative and the implication is that by holding USD, investors are already implicitly defensive. Gold: Gold traditionally does well in times of extreme geopolitical uncertainty and also as a hedge against inflation. More recently, gold has done less well as a hedge because the negative correlation between equity prices and gold broke down from 2011 until earlier this year (Chart 4). Gold has once again become negatively correlated with equity prices and we believe it will be an effective safe-haven asset should inflation become a concern. TIPS: Both 10-year TIPS and nominal Treasuries are negatively correlated with U.S. equity returns and both provide some measure of insurance in risk-off periods/phases of economic disappointment. Nonetheless, we prefer TIPS at the moment since they offer a measure of protection against a back-up in inflation expectations (also Chart 4). In sum, our protector portfolio is a combination of assets that are uncorrelated enough with equities to give investors some protection against a range of downside risks. Protector Portfolio: But Beware Buy And Hold Chart 5Protector Buy And Hold Will Not Work bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c5 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c5 As Chart 2 has shown, our protector portfolio has outperformed both a 60-30-10 and 60-40 portfolio in recent years. However, longer -term performance has been less outstanding (Chart 5). Indeed, adding a constant proportion of safe-haven assets to a balanced portfolio over an extended period underperforms the balanced portfolio benchmark for long stretches of time: there are non-negligible costs associated with holding safe-haven assets over prolonged periods. The bottom line is that timing plays a critical part in investing in safe-haven assets. Owning a fixed share of protector portfolio assets over long horizons will not beat a traditional buy and hold strategy, although superior returns over cash offer a compelling case in a NIRP world. We continue to recommend that investors hedge against downside risk in the form of the protector portfolio - or simply by choosing the safe haven that most closely corresponds as a hedge to the specific risk at hand. However, it is important to know that safe-haven assets fall in and out of favor through time and the protector portfolio will at some point no longer be justified, and/or its components will need to be adjusted. For example, only after 2000 did Treasuries start providing a good hedge against equity corrections. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but then became correlated with S&P 500 total returns from 2012-early 2016. That said, gold's coefficient has turned negative again, and it should be viewed as an all-weather safe haven, especially if deflation risks begin to dissipate. The Most Relevant Safe Haven In Case Of A Policy Mistake Chart 6Fed Policy Mistake? Buy Protector Portfolio bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c6 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c6 As we wrote above, our base investment case is that the prospect of less liquidity and the risk of an earnings disappointment mean that investors should keep a defensive portfolio stance and be prepared for pullbacks in equities in the single digits. However, the Minutes of the latest FOMC meeting highlight that a fairly low threshold has been set for a December interest rate rise. If financial market participants interpret incoming economic information more bearishly than the Fed, then a December rate hike risks being perceived by investors as a policy mistake. Under this scenario, risk assets could be set for a much greater fall, buoying the case for further portfolio insurance. Which safe havens will outperform? We take our cue from the market reaction to the December, 2015 rate hike. In that episode, equity prices fell 12%. The protector portfolio in its current configuration2 increased 10%. The bulk of the appreciation was due to a strong run in gold prices (surely helped in part by massive woes in China) and TIPS (Chart 6). We believe that this basket of assets would once again offer an important buffer against equity losses associated with a policy mistake. The Most Relevant Safe Haven For A Trump Win If a Trump win triggers a correction in risk assets, we would expect the U.S. dollar to rally due to Trump policy uncertainty and heightened geopolitical risk. We noted above that USD does not always rally when a stress event occurs on U.S. soil. However, in the past several weeks, the performance of the dollar as well as Treasury yields has been linked to Trump's probability of winning the election. Whenever the odds of a Trump presidency rise, these risk-off assets have appreciated. And The Most Relevant Lessons From The Election Cycle This month's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report 3 provides a final forecast and implications for the elections. As we note above, we agree that a Trump win is a red herring in terms of the key issues investors face. But we also agree with our geopolitical strategists that there are several important lessons from the election cycle that may have long term ramifications for investors. Below, we highlight the most relevant for financial market participants: The median voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Trump's victory over an army of seasoned, relatively orthodox GOP contenders in the primary exposed the fact that the party's grassroots voters no longer care deeply about fiscal austerity and no longer wish to tolerate the corporate incentive for importing cheap labor. Similarly, demographic trends favoring millennials and minorities (who tend to vote left on economic policies), portends a shift by which the GOP attempts to capture left-leaning voters. Fiscal conservatism (and social conservatism, for that matter) will have less to show by way of official party machinery. The 2016 election campaign has amplified the notion that the news media works in narratives. These narratives work as a filter that preempts and distorts the presentation and, to some extent, reception of facts. This phenomenon was influential in Trump's rise - the first "Twitter" candidacy - as well as his recent decline. Investors cannot be too wary of what the mainstream press or financial "smart money" says about any particular political trend or event. It is essential to separate the wheat from the chaff by using empirics and looking at macro and structural factors to identify the constraints rather than the preferences of candidates or politicians. U.S. Economy: Neither Hot Nor Cold The NFIB survey of small business survey ranks as one of our preferred indicators of U.S. business confidence. The employment related indicators serve as a key input into our payroll model; questions about the pricing environment often provide a good leading/coincident gauge about inflation trends, and; as Chart 7 shows, the labor cost versus pricing series provides an excellent leading indicator for the profit margin outlook. The latter remains in a downtrend, reinforcing our message that profit margins will remain a headwind to earnings growth for still some time. Overall, small business optimism has been generally flat this year, after peaking in late 2014. It is somewhat discouraging that "demand" as a most important problem is no longer falling. Consumption has been one of the more robust areas of growth in the past several years and we expect consumption to continue to outshine other areas of the economy. However, even here, the data should be monitored closely. Chart 7Small Business Concerns (Part 1) bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c7 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c7 Chart 8Small Business Concerns (Part 2) bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c8 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_17_c8 Retail sales (excluding gasoline and autos) growth has been slowing throughout 2016 and September data did not buck this trend (Chart 8). Results among retailers varied substantially, with growth strongest at building supply stores, sporting goods stores, vehicle dealers and furniture stores. Laggards include electronics and appliance stores - segments that are still under siege from falling prices. The bottom line is that in aggregate, consumption is holding up reasonably well and should continue to do so, as long as employment gains and modest wage growth remain intact. Stay tuned. Lenka Martinek Vice President, U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Our Geopolitical Strategy service concurs that a Trump win is a red herring, i.e. is unlikely to occur and is a distraction from more relevant issues. For more insight, please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution", dated October, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 At the time, the protector portfolio performed slightly less well, as 30-year government bonds were used instead of TIPS. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications", dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Market Calls

Highlights Recent U.S. economic data have surprised to the upside, raising the odds of a December rate hike. U.S. GDP growth is likely to accelerate further in 2017 on the back of stronger business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, and a pickup in government spending. Faster wage growth should also support consumption. The real broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% over the next 12 months, as the market prices in more Fed tightening. The stronger dollar will pose a headache for U.S. multinationals, as well as emerging markets and commodity producers. However, it will be a boon for Europe and Japan. Global equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction, but the longer-term outlook for developed market stocks outside the U.S. looks reasonably good. Investors should overweight euro area and Japanese equities in currency-hedged terms. Feature Why The Fed Hit The Pause Button When the FOMC decided to hike rates last December, it signaled to investors via its "dot plot" that rates would likely rise four times this year. Ten months later, the fed funds rate remains unchanged. What caused the Fed to stand down? External factors certainly played a role: Fears of a hard landing in China permeated the markets at the start of the year. And just as these worries were beginning to recede, the Brexit vote sent investors into a hurried panic. However, the more important reason for the Fed's decision to hit the pause button is that U.S. domestic activity slowed sharply, with real GDP growing by just 0.9% in Q4 of 2015 and by an average of 1.1% in the first half of 2016. Rays Of Light Fortunately, recent data suggest that the growth drought may be ending (Chart 1): Chart 1Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped 5.7 points in September, the largest monthly increase on record. The ISM manufacturing index also surprised to the upside, with the new orders index jumping six points to 55.1. Factory orders increased by 0.2% in August, against consensus expectations for a modest decline. Initial unemployment claims continue to decline, with the four-week average falling to a 42-year low this week. The Conference's Board's consumer confidence index hit a nine-year high in September. The University of Michigan's index also rose. The key question for investors is whether the recent spate of good data is just noise or the start of a more lasting improvement in underlying demand growth. We think it's the latter. As we expand upon below, the adverse lagged effects on growth from the dollar's appreciation between mid-2014 and early this year should dissipate, pushing aggregate demand higher. Energy sector capex appears to be stabilizing after plunging nearly 70% since its peak in 2014. Stronger wage growth should also keep consumption demand elevated, even as employment growth continues to decelerate. In addition, fiscal policy is likely to loosen somewhat regardless of who wins the presidential election. Lastly, the inventory cycle appears to be turning, following five straight quarters in which falling inventory investment subtracted from growth. To what extent will better U.S. growth translate into a stronger dollar? To answer this question, we proceed in three steps: First, we estimate the magnitude by which U.S. growth will exceed its trend rate if the Fed takes no action to tighten financial conditions. Our answer is "by around one percentage point in 2017," which we think is considerably above market expectations. Second, we assess the degree to which the Fed will need to tighten financial conditions - via higher interest rates and a stronger dollar - in order to keep inflation from significantly overshooting its target. Third, we consider how developments abroad will affect the dollar. Our conclusion is that the real trade-weighted dollar will likely rise by around 10% over the next 12 months. How Quickly Will Aggregate Demand Grow If The Fed Does Not Raise Rates? As detailed below, a bottom-up analysis of the various components of GDP suggests that real GDP growth could reach 2.5% in the second half of 2016 and accelerate to 2.8% in 2017 if financial conditions remain unchanged from current levels. This would represent a significant step up in growth from the average pace of 1.6% experienced between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. While growth of 2.8% next year might sound implausibly high, keep in mind that real final sales to private domestic purchasers - the cleanest measure of underlying private-sector demand - has grown by an average of 3% since Q3 of 2014 and increased by 3.2% in Q2 of this year, the last quarter for which data is available. Consumption Assuming that interest rates and the dollar remain unchanged, we project that real personal consumption will grow by an average of 2.7% in Q4 of this year and over the course of 2017. This is equivalent to the average growth rate of real PCE between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016, but below the 3% pace recorded in the first half of this year. Granted, employment growth is likely to slow over the coming quarters, as labor market slack is absorbed. Nevertheless, real income growth should remain reasonably robust, as real wages accelerate in response to a tighter labor market. A rough rule of thumb is that a 1% increase in real wage growth boosts real household income by the equivalent of 120,000 extra jobs per month over one full year. Thus, it would not take much of a pickup in wage growth to ensure that consumption keeps rising at a fairly solid pace. In fact, one could see a virtuous circle emerging, where accelerating wage growth pushes up consumption, leading to a tighter labor market, and even faster wage growth. At some point the Fed would raise rates by enough to cool the economy, but not before the dollar had moved sharply higher. This may explain why there is such a strikingly strong correlation between the dollar and labor's share of national income (Chart 2). Households may also end up spending a bit more of their incomes. Faster wage growth, rising consumer confidence, continued home price appreciation, and negative real deposit rates have all given households even more incentive to spend freely. While we do not expect the savings rate to fall anywhere close to the rock-bottom levels seen before the financial crisis, even a 0.5 percentage point decline from the current level of 5.7%, spread out over six quarters, would add 0.4% to GDP growth. Residential Investment Real residential investment dropped 7.7% in Q2 after growing by an average of nearly 12% over the preceding six quarters. The Q2 dip was mainly due to the warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. Housing activity has recovered since then, with new home sales, single-family housing starts, and the NAHB homebuilders index all at or near post-crisis highs (Chart 3). Chart 2The Dollar Is Redistributing Income bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c2 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c2 Chart 3U.S. Housing Remains Robust U.S. Housing Remains Robust U.S. Housing Remains Robust The underpinnings for housing continue to look good. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined nearly 20 points from its 2008 high - the lowest figure since 2003 - while the debt- service ratio is back to where it was in the early 1980s (Chart 4). Excess inventories have also been absorbed. The homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to 1.7%, completely reversing the spike experienced during the Great Recession (Chart 5). With household formation picking up and housing starts still 20%-to-25% below most estimates of how much construction is necessary to keep up with population growth, it is likely that housing activity can increase at a reasonably brisk pace over the next two years. We assume that real residential investment will expand by 4% in both Q4 and 2017. Chart 4Household Debt Burdens Have Declined bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c4 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c4 Chart 5The Excess Supply In Housing Has Cleared bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c5 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c5 Business Capex Growth in business capital spending has been falling since mid-2014 and turned negative on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of this year. Initially, the deceleration in capital spending was largely confined to the energy sector. Since late last year, however, non-energy capex has also weakened sharply (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing In Energy Sector Retrenchment Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen The recent slowdown in business capex reflects three factors. First, the disaggregated data on corporate investment spending indicate that lower energy prices generated a second-round effect on businesses that are not officially classified as being part of the energy space, but that are nonetheless major suppliers to the sector. Second, the stronger dollar hurt the manufacturing sector more broadly, leading to a lagged decline in capital spending. Third, the backup in corporate borrowing spreads that began in May 2014 and the associated tightening in bank lending standards put further downward pressure on business capex. All three of these headwinds have waned over the past few months (Chart 7). The oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. The dollar and corporate credit spreads have also come down, while loan growth remains robust (Chart 8). Reflecting these developments, core capital goods orders have risen for the past three months. Corporate capex intentions have also perked up (Chart 9). We project that real business capex will increase by 2.5% in Q4 and 3.5% in 2017 if the dollar and interest rates remain unchanged. Chart 7Borrowing Costs Have Fallen bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c7 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c7 Chart 8Solid Loan Growth bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c8 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c8 Chart 9Recent Signs Of Improving Corporate Capex Spending Intentions bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c9 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c9 Inventories Lower inventory investment shaved 1.2 percentage points off Q2 growth. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter that inventories have been a drag on growth - the first time this has happened since 1956. Real inventory levels fell by $9.5 billion at a seasonally-adjusted annualized pace in the second quarter and are likely to be flat-to-slightly down again in Q3. However, since it is the change in inventory investment that affects growth, this should translate into a modestly positive contribution to Q3 GDP growth. Looking further out, firms are likely to start slowly rebuilding inventories as we head into 2017. The economy wide inventory-to-sales ratio is now back near its trend level (Chart 10). Durable goods inventories excluding the volatile aircraft component rose in the third quarter, as did the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 11). We expect inventory restocking to boost growth by 0.1 percentage points in Q4 and 2017, a big improvement over the drag of -0.6 percentage points between Q2 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. Chart 10Room To Stock Up Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Chart 11Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Government Spending Real government consumption and investment declined by 1.7% in Q2 on the back of lower state and local spending and continued weakness in defense expenditures. The drop at the state and local levels should be reversed, given that tax revenues are trending higher. Federal government spending should also pick up regardless of who wins the presidency. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester and increasing infrastructure spending. We are penciling in growth in real government expenditures of 1.5% in Q4 and 2.5% in 2017. Net Exports Net exports shaved 0.8 percentage points off growth in the five quarters spanning Q4 of 2014 to Q4 of 2015. Net exports made a slight positive contribution to growth in the first half of this year. Unfortunately, this was mainly a consequence of sluggish import growth against a backdrop of decelerating domestic demand. Looking out, assuming no change in the dollar index, a rebound in import demand will lead to a modest widening in the trade deficit, which will translate into a 0.2 percentage-point drag from net exports over the remainder of this year and 2017. Putting It All Together The analysis above suggests that the U.S. economy will grow by around 2.5% in Q4 - close to the pace that Q3 growth is currently tracking at - with growth accelerating to 2.8% in 2017. This is a point above the Fed's estimate of long-term real potential GDP growth based on the latest Summary of Economic Projections. How Will The Fed React To Faster Growth? We tend to agree with most FOMC officials who think that the economy is now close to full employment. We also concur that the relationship between inflation and spare capacity is not linear. When spare capacity is high, even large declines in unemployment have little effect on inflation. In contrast, when the labor market becomes quite tight, modest declines in the unemployment rate can cause inflation to rise appreciably. As Chart 12 illustrates, the existence of such a "kinked" Phillips Curve is consistent with the data. Where this publication's view differs with the Fed's is over the question of how much of an inflation overshoot should be tolerated. Considering that the Fed has undershot its inflation target by a cumulative 4% since 2009, a strong case can be made that it should aim for a sizable overshoot in order to bring the price level back to its pre-crisis trend. Most FOMC members do not see it that way, however. This point was reinforced by Chair Yellen at her September press conference when she said that "We don't want the economy to overheat and significantly overshoot our 2 percent inflation objective."1 Chart 13 shows that many measures of core inflation are already above 2%. This suggests that the Fed is unlikely to stand pat if aggregate demand growth looks set to accelerate to nearly 3% next year, as our analysis suggests it will. Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Chart 13Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% How high will rates go? This is a tricky question to answer because it requires us to know the value of the so-called neutral rate - the short-term interest rate consistent with full employment. Complicating the matter is the fact that changes in interest rate expectations will affect the value of the dollar, and that changes in the value of the greenback, in turn, will affect the level of the neutral rate. This is because a stronger dollar means a larger trade deficit, which necessitates a lower interest rate to keep the economy at full employment. It is a "joint estimation" problem, as economists call it. One key point to keep in mind is that currencies tend to be more sensitive to changes in interest rate differentials when those differentials are expected to persist for a long time. Chart 14 makes this point using a visual example.2 The implication is that most of the tightening in financial conditions that the Fed will need to engineer is likely to occur through a stronger dollar rather than through higher interest rate expectations. Chart 14The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the level of aggregate demand would exceed the economy's supply-side potential by 2% of GDP by end-2019 in the absence of any effort by the Fed to tighten financial conditions.3 We estimate that in order to keep the output gap at zero, the real trade-weighted dollar would need to appreciate by 10% and the fed funds rate would need to rise to 2% in nominal terms, or 0% in real terms. Despite this month's rally, the real broad trade-weighted dollar is still down more than 2% from its January high. Thus, a 10% appreciation would leave the dollar index less than 8% above where it was earlier this year, and well below past peaks (Chart 15). Chart 15Still Far From Past Peaks Still Far From Past Peaks Still Far From Past Peaks In terms of timing, a reasonable baseline is that the Fed will raise rates in December and twice more in 2017. This would represent a more rapid pace of rate hikes than what is currently discounted by markets, but would only be roughly half as fast as in past tightening cycles. How quickly the dollar strengthens will depend on how fast market expectations about the future path of short-term rates adjust. In past episodes such as the "taper tantrum," they have moved quite rapidly. This suggests that the dollar could also rise at a fairly fast clip. The Impact From Abroad Chart 16A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads Exchange rates are nothing more than relative prices. This means that developments abroad have just as much of an effect on currencies as developments at home. Given the size of the U.S. economy, better U.S. growth would likely benefit the rest of the world. Could this impart a tightening bias on other central banks that cancels out some of the upward pressure on the dollar? For the most part, the answer is no. Both the euro area and Japan have more of a problem with deflation than the U.S. The neutral rate is also lower in both economies. This implies that neither the ECB nor the BoJ are likely to raise rates anytime soon. Thus, to the extent that stronger U.S. growth buoys these economies, this will translate into somewhat higher inflation expectations and thus, lower real rates in the euro area and Japan. This is bearish for their currencies. The possibility that the ECB will start tapering asset purchases next March, as many have speculated, would not alter our bullish view on the dollar to any great degree. Granted, if the ECB did take such a step without introducing any offsetting measures to ease monetary policy, this would cause European bond yields to rise, putting upward pressure on the euro. However, anything that strengthens the euro would weaken the dollar, giving the U.S. a competitive boost. This, in turn, would prompt the Fed to raise rates even more than it otherwise would. The final outcome would be that the dollar would still appreciate, although not quite as much as if the ECB kept its asset purchases unchanged. As far as emerging markets are concerned, a hawkish Fed is generally bad news. Tighter U.S. monetary policy will reduce the pool of global liquidity that has pushed down EM borrowing costs (Chart 16). And given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars, a stronger greenback could cause distress among some over-leveraged borrowers. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar has typically hurt commodities - the lifeblood for many emerging economies. All of this is likely to translate into weaker EM currencies, and hence, a stronger dollar. Investment Conclusions Today's market climate is similar to the one around this time last year. Back then, the Fed was also gearing up to hike rates. Initially, stocks held their ground even as bond yields edged higher. But then, shortly after the Fed raised rates, the floodgates opened and the S&P 500 fell 13% within the course of six weeks (Chart 17). We are nearing such a precipice again. And, in contrast to earlier this year when the 10-year Treasury yield fell by 70 basis points, there is less scope for the bond market to generate an easing in financial conditions in response to plunging equity prices. The 10-year Treasury yield stood at 2.30% on December 29, just before the stock market began to sell off. Today it stands at 1.74%. Investors should position for an equity correction that sends the S&P 500 down 10% from current levels. Looking out, if U.S. growth does begin to accelerate, that should provide some support to stocks. Nevertheless, a stronger dollar and faster wage growth will weigh on corporate earnings, while stretched valuation levels will limit any further expansion in P/E multiples (Chart 18). Investors should underweight U.S. stocks relative to their global peers, at least in local-currency terms. Chart 17Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Chart 18U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High Turning to bonds, while an equity market correction would not cause Treasurys to rally as much as they did in January, the 10-year yield could still touch 1.5% if risk sentiment were to deteriorate. Once the dust settles, however, bond yields will resume their upward grind. Lastly, a stronger dollar will pose a significant headwind for commodities. That said, as we discussed in last week's Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook, recent cuts to capital spending are likely to generate supply shortages in some corners of the commodity complex.4 BCA's commodity strategists prefer energy over metals and are particularly bullish on U.S. natural gas heading into 2017. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Transcript of Chair Yellen's Press Conference September 21, 2016," Federal Reserve, September 21, 2016. 2 To understand this concept in words, consider two countries: Country A and Country B. Suppose rates in both countries are initially the same, but that Country A's central bank then proceeds to raise rates by one percentage point and pledges to keep them at this higher level for five years. Why would anyone buy Country B's short-term debt given that Country A's debt yields one percent more? The answer is that people would be indifferent between investing in Country A and Country B if they thought Country A's currency would depreciate by 1% per year over the next five years. To generate the expectation of a depreciation, however, Country A's currency would first have to appreciate by 5%. Now modify the example with the only difference being that Country A's central bank pledges to keep rates higher for ten years, rather than five. For interest rate parity to hold, Country A's currency would now have to overshoot its fair value by 10%. The implication is that the longer interest rates in Country A are expected to exceed those in Country B, the more "expensive" Country A's currency must first become. 3 For the purposes of this calculation, we assume that the output gap this year will be -0.5% of GDP and that aggregate demand growth will exceed potential GDP growth by 1% in both 2017 and 2018, with the gap between demand and supply growth falling to 0.5% in 2019 and stabilizing at zero thereafter. The New York Fed's trade model suggests that a 10% appreciation in the dollar would reduce the level of real GDP by a cumulative 1.2 percentage points over a two-year period. A slightly modified Taylor Rule equation implies that an 80 basis-point increase in interest rates on average across the yield curve would reduce the level of real GDP by 0.8 percentage points after several years. We assume that Fed tightening would lead to a flatter yield curve so that short-term rates rise more than long-term yields. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Strategy Outlook, "Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Consumer products stocks are likely to move to an even larger valuation premium before the cyclical outperformance phase ends.

The August payrolls report did not change our view that a Fed rate hike is likely in December, but not before that.

Investors are being forced into riskier asset classes by the TINA effect, but the gaping macro disequilibria makes it difficult for investors to see how we move back to equilibrium in a benign way. Monetary policy on its own is limited in its ability to soften the adjustment, but the good news is that the political pendulum is swinging toward fiscal stimulus.

The major banks are more willing to lend to the consumer and less willing to lend to the corporate sector.

Risk assets will take their cues more from the dollar than the Fed if the euro rises above its 16-month range against the dollar. Retain exposure to energy equities and gold.

In this <i>Special Report</i>, we revisit our list of signpost economic indicators introduced two years ago to identify if the U.S. and Euro Area were falling into a "Secular Stagnation".

Tougher Fed talk warns that the Goldilocks combination of higher stock and bond prices in place since February is not sustainable.