Equities

Highlights The combination of slower global growth, trade protectionism, Italy's budget crisis, and rising Treasury yields have made U.S. equities increasingly vulnerable to a phase transition from euphoric optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks facing the global economy. The good news is that the U.S. economy is still quite healthy and none of our recession indicators are flashing red. This suggests that the correction which began last week will be just that, a correction. The bad news is that corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot. Stock market sentiment is still fairly ebullient, which suggests that it will take more pain to put in a bottom. Investors should anticipate renewed weakness in risk assets over the coming days, but be prepared to increase exposure to global equities if they retreat 9% from current levels. Feature Global Equities: How Low Will They Go? I have been on the road meeting clients this week. Not surprisingly, much of the discussion has focused on what caused last week's stock market sell-off and whether the rebound earlier this week marked the end of the correction. At times like these, I am reminded of Robert Shiller's study of the 1987 stock market crash. Soon after the crash, Shiller sent questionnaires to investors soliciting their views on what caused stocks to swoon. Shiller's assessment downplayed the role of program trading, instead ascribing the crash to investor panic.1 Simply put, Shiller contended that investors were selling because other investors were selling. While I broadly agree with Shiller's conclusion, I think his argument can be enhanced by drawing on a ubiquitous concept in physics: the idea of "phase transitions." Phase Transitions In Financial Markets A phase transition occurs when a substance changes from a solid, liquid, or gas into a different state. For example, water remains a liquid until its temperature either falls below zero degrees Celsius, at which point it becomes a solid (ice), or rises above 100°C, where it turns into gas (steam). The relationship between water and temperature is highly nonlinear. To someone who can only visually observe the contents of a kettle, it is difficult to say if the temperature of the water is 20°C or 80°C. The same principle applies to markets. Sometimes, as economic and financial stresses build, nothing discernible happens until a phase transition is reached, at which point everything goes haywire. Importantly for investors, these phase transitions are surprisingly common and, at least with the benefit of hindsight, are often predictable. The Twilight Zone From Boom To Bust Consider the lead-up to five market crashes in the U.S. over the past 100 years: 1929: The conventional wisdom is that the stock market crash of October 1929 was the first hint that the economy was about to go into a tailspin. But, in fact, automobile, machinery, and steel production were already falling by the summer of 1929 (Chart 1). Automobile output had declined by a third by the time stocks reached their zenith. Investors simply ignored the fact that the economic thermostat was plunging towards zero in those late summer months, setting the stage for a phase transition from boom to bust. Chart 1The Economy Had Started To Deteriorate Before The 1929 Stock Market Crash 1987: It was not so much one single thing that caused the stock market crash on October 19, 1987, but a culmination of things that the market either ignored or downplayed in the months leading up to Black Monday. A rising U.S. trade deficit and a falling dollar raised concerns that the Fed would be forced to expedite the pace of rate hikes. The 10-year Treasury yield increased from 7.1% at the start of 1987 to almost 10% on the eve of the crash (Chart 2). The House of Representatives filed legislation that sought to eliminate the tax benefits of financial mergers. Against a backdrop of increasingly stretched valuations, these developments were enough to bring the temperature of the stock market below zero. Chart 2Treasury Yields Spiked In The Run-Up To The 1987 Crash 1998: Popular lore attributes the 22% plunge in the S&P 500 from July 20 to October 8 to the implosion of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), but in fact almost all of the decline in the index occurred before the problems at LTCM surfaced. It was more the steady drip of bad news over the course of 1998 - the spread of the EM crisis from Thailand to Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea; the collapse of Hong Kong-based Peregrine Investments Holdings, Asia's largest private investment bank at the time; growing fears that China would devalue its currency; and finally, the Russian sovereign debt default - which caused market sentiment among U.S. investors to turn from euphoric ambivalence to bearish panic (Chart 3). Chart 3Key Events During The Asian Crisis 2000: After cutting interest rates three times in the autumn of 1998, the Fed resumed hiking rates, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to a cycle high of 6.5% in May 2000. The Fed's actions pushed monetary policy into restrictive territory, weakening the foundation on which the stock market boom had been built. A massive wave of equity issuance from initial and secondary public offerings only made matters worse. Net corporate equity issuance went from -$111 billion in 1998, to $6 billion in 1999, to $153 billion in Q1 of 2000 alone (Chart 4). With the market unable to absorb the increase in the supply of shares, prices began to tumble. Chart 4A Tidal Wave Of Equity Issuance Preceded The 2000 Crash 2008: The stock market crash in the autumn of 2008 did not come out of the blue. U.S. home prices peaked in April 2006 - twenty months before the recession officially began. Delinquency rates on both conventional and nonconventional mortgages had already more than doubled by late-2007 (Chart 5). By then, residential investment had already fallen by 2.5% of GDP from its high in December 2005. Investors may be forgiven for not appreciating the full extent of the mortgage problem. However, it should have been clear, even at the time, that nothing was going to fill the void in aggregate demand that the decline in housing-related spending had opened up. This made a recession highly likely. Chart 5The U.S. Housing Sector Weakened Sharply Prior To The 2008 Crash Corrections Vs. Bear Markets The five sell-offs discussed above share many similarities, along with a number of key differences. As far as the similarities are concerned, all five began when stocks were richly priced and macro fundamentals were starting to look increasingly shaky (Chart 6). Chart 6Bear Markets Tend To Occur When Earnings Disappoint The differences lie mainly in what happened to stocks after the dam burst. In 1987 and 1998, equities quickly bottomed; whereas the initial drop in stocks in 1929, 2000, and 2008 was followed by further declines, morphing into major bear markets. The evolution of the economy distinguishes the two sets of episodes. The 1929, 2000, and 2008 sell-offs foreshadowed significant declines in economic activity and corporate earnings. In contrast, neither the stock market crash in 1987 nor the one in 1998 presaged any imminent economic doom. The latter two episodes were among those "false positives" that had led Paul Samuelson to quip decades earlier that "the stock market had predicted nine out of the last five recessions."2 History suggests that recessions are more likely to occur when the economy is suffering from significant macroeconomic imbalances. Both the 1929 and 2008 crashes were preceded by large increases in leverage (Chart 7). This made the financial system highly vulnerable to economic shocks. History also suggests that recessions are more likely to occur when policymakers lack either the will or the tools to stimulate the economy. The Fed did little to arrest the myriad bank failures in the early 1930s. This negligence allowed the money supply to decline by one-third, which caused deflation to set in. Chart 7Large Increases In Leverage Occurred During The Lead-Up To The 1929 & 2008 Crashes Policymakers were more adept in combating the Great Recession, but were nevertheless constrained by a lack of regulatory authority to handle distressed nonbank financial institutions. The zero lower bound on short-term interest rates also limited the Fed's ability to cut rates by enough to revive growth, a pernicious constraint given Congress' unwillingness to enact a sufficiently large fiscal stimulus program. Both the 1987 and 1998 crashes had the potential to spawn recessions. Fortunately, policymakers were quick to put out the fire. The Federal Reserve eased short-term liquidity conditions by engaging in large-scale open market operations in the hours following the 1987 crash. The Fed also issued a statement affirming "its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system."3 Likewise, the FOMC's decision to cut rates in the autumn of 1998 helped to temporarily weaken the dollar and give some breathing room to struggling emerging markets. The Fed was slower to cut rates after the stock market fell in March 2000, partly because the economy was more overheated by that point than it was in 1998. In addition, the bubble in stocks was much greater in 2000, as were the economic imbalances created by years of easy financing, chief of which was a massive overhang of capital spending in the tech sector (Chart 8). Chart 8The Dotcom Boom Created A Massive Overhang In Tech Sector Capex Lessons For Today Buying on the dips in the early stages of a bear market is usually a recipe for disaster. Investors who jumped back into the stock market in September 2008 were in for a rude awakening as stocks continued to plummet into October and November. It was only in March 2009, when the first green shoots appeared, that the stock market finally bottomed. In contrast, buying into a correction tends to be a profitable strategy, provided one does so when technical indicators are signaling that a capitulation point has been reached. This brings us to today. The combination of slower global growth, trade protectionism, Italy's budget crisis, and rising Treasury yields have made U.S. equities increasingly vulnerable to a phase transition from euphoric optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks presently facing the global economy. The good news is that the U.S. economy is still quite healthy and none of our recession indicators are flashing red (Chart 9). As we discussed two weeks ago, aggregate demand continues to benefit from fiscal stimulus, strong credit growth, and a strengthening labor market.4 While bond yields have risen, they are still far from levels that will choke off growth. This suggests that the correction which began last week will be just that, a correction. Chart 9A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent The bad news is that corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot. Stock market sentiment is still fairly ebullient, which suggests that it will take more pain to put in a bottom (Chart 10). This message is echoed by our forthcoming MacroQuant model, which is designed to gauge the "internal temperature" of the market. (Chart 11). It is currently pointing to downside risk for the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. Chart 10Stock Market Sentiment Is Still Fairly Elevated Chart 11MacroQuant* Recommends Continued Caution Towards Equities Even EM sentiment has yet to reach bombed-out levels. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey showed that managers were slightly net overweight emerging market equities in October. This is a far cry from 2015, when a net 30% of managers were underweight EM stocks. Bottom Line: Investors should anticipate renewed weakness in risk assets over the coming days, but be prepared to increase exposure to global equities if they retreat 9% from current levels. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Robert J. Shiller, "Investor Behavior in the October 1987 Stock Market Crash: Survey Evidence," NBER Working Paper (2446), November 1987. 2 Paul Samuelson, "Science and Stocks," Newsweek, September 19, 1966 (p. 92). 3 Mark Carlson, "A Brief History of the 1987 Stock Market Crash with a Discussion of the Federal Reserve Response," Federal Reserve, 2006. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?" dated October 5, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The current market action in the EM equity space qualifies as a bear market, not a correction. Yet the magnitude of this drawdown (25%) is still considerably smaller than the median stock price drop (45%) of previous bear markets. Hence, more downside in EM share prices in dollar terms is to be expected. The Federal Reserve is not about to rescue EM - not until U.S. share prices fall considerably and the dollar appreciates sharply. For EM dedicated equity portfolios, we are downgrading Taiwan from overweight to neutral (please see page 11). We reiterate our underweight stance on Peruvian stocks (please see page 14). Feature All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina To rephrase Leo Tolstoy's famous quote from Anna Karenina: All bull markets are alike; but, each bear market is distinctive in its own way. The emerging market stock index has dropped by 25% from its January high. We reckon EMs are in a bear market - not a correction. Thus, there is still meaningful downside in EM financial markets, and it is still too early to bottom-fish. Many commentators and investors are comparing the current selloff with other bear markets, most notably those that occurred in 1997-'98 and 2014-'15. Our answer to these comparisons is the above quote from Tolstoy. This EM rout is different from the previous ones, including the most recent one that occurred in 2015. Yet just because this selloff is in certain aspects unlike previous bear markets does not mean it is not a full-fledged bear market. Bear Markets Versus Corrections There is no scientific distinction between a bear market and a correction. The below considerations suggest to us that EMs are in a genuine bear market, not a correction. These deliberations complement rather than substitute our fundamental analysis that foreshadows weakening growth and deteriorating profitability in EM/China - the topics that we regularly discuss at great length in our weekly reports. Chart I-1 portrays EM share prices since the mid-1980s and identifies periods of bear markets. Bear markets differ from corrections not only by the magnitude of drawdowns but also by duration. We define an EM bear market as a drawdown that either lasted longer than six months or in which peak-to-trough price declines exceeded 25%. Chart I-1EM Stock Prices: A Long-Term Perspective Of Bear Markets Table I-1 and Table I-2 illustrate EM equity corrections and bear markets over the past 30+ years, respectively. Median and mean EM equity market corrections have historically lasted one and a half to two months, with price drawdowns of 18% in U.S. dollar terms each (Table I-1). On the other hand, median and mean EM equity bear markets have lasted eight to 10 months, with share prices falling by 45% (Table I-2). The current selloff is already more than eight months old, with share prices down 25% in dollar terms. Its duration has by far surpassed that of previous corrections. Therefore, the current market action in the EM equity space qualifies as a bear market. If this bear market produces a drawdown of 45%, on par with the median bear market, it would require another 30% drop in EM share prices in dollar terms from current levels. The range of price declines of previous EM equity bear markets is between 31% and 67%. For the current selloff to match the lowest point of this range (31%), share prices should fall another 10%. These estimates should help investors conduct their own scenario analyses. Our bias is that there will likely be at least another 15% drop in EM share prices before the risk-reward profile of this asset class improves. The way this EM selloff has been evolving is more consistent with a bear market than a correction. As a rule, EM equity corrections are sharp but short-lived. Table 1 shows that EM equity corrections have typically lasted from one to three months. In corrections, all markets drop together at once. In contrast, bear markets are drawn out, and domino effects leading to rotational selloffs are the norm. The current episode corresponds more to this pattern. Initially, the EM market riot was concentrated among discernably vulnerable markets such as Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. Then, the epicenter of the selloff rotated to emerging Asia, where large equity markets including China, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong took a beating1 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2EM: Rotational Selloffs A similar pattern of rotational selloffs prevailed in the 1997-'98 bear market in EM and in 2007-'08 in the U.S. (Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B). Chart I-3ARotational Selloffs During EM Bear Markets Chart I-3BRotational Selloffs During U.S. Credit Crisis In 2007-08 With the exception of bombed-out cases like Turkey and Argentina, there has been no panic-selling or forced liquidation. Although the current EM selloff has already been stretched out, it appears that selling has been rather reluctant. It would be unusual if a selloff of this magnitude and duration, occurring amid worsening EM/China growth and Fed tightening, does not culminate into liquidation/capitulation. We still expect such capitulation to occur. In fact, this would be one of the signposts for us to turn positive on EM. Bottom Line: Taking into account the duration and disposition of the current selloff, EM stocks are in a bear market, not a correction. That said, the magnitude of this drawdown (25%) is still smaller than the median price falloff (45%) and the range of price declines of previous EM bear markets. Hence, there is potentially another 10-30% price drop for EM stocks in dollar terms for this bear market to be on par with the smallest and median EM bear markets, respectively. Technical Signposts Of A Bear Market There are a number of technical signposts that are consistent with further downside in EM risk assets and currencies: Relative share price performance of EM versus DM has failed to break above its long-term moving average that has in the past served as an important technical support or resistance (Chart I-4). This entails that the relative bear market in EM versus DM is intact, and major fresh lows lie ahead. Chart I-4EM Versus DM: Relative Stock Prices In U.S. Dollars In absolute terms, the crest in EM share prices early this year was typical of a major top. The EM equity index has failed to break above its previous tops (Chart I-1 on page 1). This represents bearish price formation. Usually, when a market fails to break above its previous tops, a major downslide ensues. In short, the chart formation of EM stocks is in line with a bear market - not a correction. The breadth of the EM equity selloff has been extensive, entailing a genuine bear market. The stock market selloff has not been limited to large-cap names. Both the EM small-cap and equally-weighted stock indexes have in fact sold off more (Chart I-5). Chart I-5EM Equity Selloff Is Broad-Based The global equity sectors exposed to EM/China growth such as industrials, chemicals, mining and steel have all relapsed after failing to break above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-6). This entails more downside in their share prices, and corroborates our view that global trade growth will deteriorate further. Chart I-6Global Cyclicals Are Breaking Down Asian semiconductor stocks are breaking down - another bad omen for global trade and Asian growth (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Asian Semiconductor Stocks Are Plunging U.S. Treasury yields as well as U.S. TIPS yields have broken out, and there is more upside to come. Odds are that U.S. interest rate expectations will continue to ratchet higher, which will weigh on EM currencies and risk assets. In terms of risks to our view, the technical profile of the U.S. dollar looks worrisome (Chart I-8). The broad trade-weighted greenback might potentially be forming a head-and-shoulder pattern. If the dollar relapses, EM risk assets will rally, and our negative stance on EM will turn out wrong. Chart I-8Trade-Weighted Broad U.S. Dollar: At A Vulnerable Spot? For now, however, we maintain that current global macro dynamics warrant a stronger dollar. In particular, a stronger dollar is required to redistribute growth away from the U.S. and towards the rest of the world.2 Specifically, the U.S. needs a strong dollar to cap budding inflation. For now, we view the recent dollar's softness as a short-term correction from overbought levels. Is A Replay Of February 2016 In Cards? A number of clients have been questioning whether current global macro dynamics - in certain aspects - is reminiscent of the peak in the dollar and the bottom in EM and global equity and credit markets that occurred in February 2016. Back then, the Fed paused its tightening cycle, and China's fiscal and credit stimulus put a floor under mainland growth. These measures combined marked a major top in the dollar and a bottom in EM risk assets. Presently, conditions are substantially different from those that prevailed during that time. In particular: Presently, there is no basis for the Fed to halt its tightening. The U.S. economy is now much stronger - nominal GDP growth is 5.4% versus 2.4% in the first quarter of 2016 (Chart I-9, top panel). Manufacturing production - excluding oil and mining output - is presently very robust (Chart I-9, middle panel). This stands in stark contrast to early 2016 when it was shrinking. Chart I-9U.S. Growth Is Much Stronger Today Than In Early 2016 Importantly, the U.S. output gap is positive, and core inflation is 2% and rising (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Overall, the Fed is not about to pause. On the contrary, U.S. interest rate expectations are still low relative to what is required to restrain America's growth and cap budding inflation. In short, the Fed is not about to rescue EM - not until the latter's financial and economic conditions deteriorate much more, U.S. asset prices fall considerably and the dollar appreciates sharply. In China, the fiscal and credit stimulus implemented so far has been insufficient to bolster growth. The impact of previous tightening is working its way through the economy, and the recent liquidity and fiscal stimuli have so far been insufficient to kick off a new business cycle upturn. We will re-visit this issue in next week's report. EM equities are not yet as cheap as they were at their 2016 lows, according to their cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio (Chart I-10). Another 15% decline in EM share prices will bring the EM CAPE ratio to one standard deviation below its mean - the level where the EM CAPE ratio bottomed in early 2016. Chart I-10EM Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio: Not Very Cheap Crucially, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation metric. It matters for investment horizons beyond two to three years. It is not a useful gauge for the next 12 months or so. As such, even for long-term investors, the risk-reward trade-off for EM stocks is not yet favorable. Bottom Line: Conditions do not exist for the Fed to halt its tightening campaign. This, along with the currently limited stimulus from China and not-so-cheap EM equity valuations, entail that a major bottom in EM stocks is not in the cards. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrading Taiwanese Stocks 18 October 2018 We have been overweighting Taiwanese stocks within an EM equity portfolio since 2007, and this bourse has outperformed the EM index by 30% since that time (Chart II-1). Presently, odds of a pullback in relative performance have risen considerably, and we recommend reducing allocation to this bourse from overweight to neutral. Chart II-1Take Profits On Overweight Taiwanese Stocks Position With the exception of DRAM prices, semiconductor prices are collapsing (Chart II-2). This is a nail in the coffin for this semi- and technology hardware-heavy bourse. Chart II-2Deflation In Semiconductor Prices In the past, Taiwan has depreciated its currency to offset the impact of falling export prices in dollar terms on corporate profitability. This option is no longer available to the authorities. It seems the Trump administration has made it clear to the island that its political and military support partially hinges on Taiwan not intervening in the currency market. In short, the authorities will not be able to resort to material currency depreciation to fight deflation in manufacturing goods as they have in the past. This is bad news for Taiwan's manufacturing-heavy economy, and especially corporate profitability. Exports and manufacturing are decelerating (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Taiwan's Business Cycle Exports of electronic products parts lead non-financial EBITDA, and currently foreshadow a deteriorating profit outlook (Chart II-4). Chart II-4Taiwan: Corporate Profits Are At Risk The recent underperformance of Taiwanese small-cap stocks versus their EM peers is a red flag for the relative performance of large caps. Last but not least, Taiwan is extremely exposed to U.S.-China strategic tensions, as our geopolitical team has argued.3 Escalating geopolitical and strategic tensions between the U.S. and China are taking us closer to a point where these risks are set to materialize, and the risk premium on Taiwanese equities to rise. This will hurt Taiwanese stocks' performance in both absolute and relative terms. Bottom Line: We are downgrading our allocation to Taiwanese stocks from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. This bourse is also vulnerable in absolute terms. This shift is also consistent with our overall portfolio strategy of reducing equity allocations to Asia in favor of Latin America, as well as with our new equity trade of shorting emerging Asia versus Latin America - a recommendation we made last week. In emerging Asia, having downgraded Taiwan, we now remain overweight only in Korea and Thailand. Peru: An Unsustainable Divergence 18 October 2018 Relative performance of Peruvian equities to EM has been resilient over the past nine months despite falling industrial and precious metals prices and a buoyant dollar (Chart III-1, top panel). Banks, and in particular Peru's financial behemoth, Credicorp, have been the primary contributors to Peruvian market outperformance.4 Excluding banks from the stock index shows that non-financials stocks have not outperformed the EM benchmark since early 2017 (Chart III-1, bottom panel). Chart III-1Peruvian Relative Equity Performance Has Diverged From Metals Prices Is such a divergence between metals prices and Peru's relative equity performance sustainable over the coming year? We think not. Balance of payment (BoP) dynamics has historically driven the macro cycle in Peru. In 2016-17, a favorable external backdrop - high commodity prices and capital inflows into EM - led to a stable exchange rate that in turn allowed the Peruvian central bank to cut interest rates by 150bps. Domestic demand has recovered briskly. However, based on our overall global macro view, we expect Peru's BoP to deteriorate and the virtuous cycle to reverse for the time being. Terms of trade are set to deteriorate with lower industrial and precious metals prices. Mining exports represent 60% of total exports, and the drop in copper and gold prices will dampen the value of exports. Historically, the currency and share prices perform poorly when the trade balance deteriorates (Chart III-2). Chart III-2Current Account Dictates Currency And Equity Trends Importantly, a strong dollar and a global EM riot will lead to diminishing foreign portfolio inflows. Foreigners own 42% of the local fixed-income market and any currency weakness could prompt hedging of currency risk. This will necessitate the central bank (the BCRP) to intervene in the foreign exchange market to defend the sol. By doing so, the central bank will withdraw domestic liquidity - banks' excess reserves at the BCRP will shrink (Chart III-3). Tightening local currency liquidity will lead to higher interbank rates (Chart III-4). Chart III-3Central Bank Selling FX Reserves = Lower Domestic Liquidity Chart III-4Lower Domestic Liquidity = Higher Rates Rising interbank rates will dampen banks' net interest margin as well as constrain loan growth in the process. In short, banks' profitability will be materially affected. Interestingly, interest rates, shown as inverted in the chart, correlate with banks' share prices (Chart III-5, top panel). Chart III-5Higher Rates Will Hurt Bank Stocks Finally, a slowdown in the economy and higher borrowing costs, both local and U.S. dollar, will cause non-performing loans (NPLs) to rise. Banks will be forced to increase provisions for non-performing assets, hurting bank profits in the process (Chart III-5, bottom panel). In terms of financial markets implications, we have the following observations and recommendations to make: Peruvian stock prices have been unable to break above their previous highs in absolute terms, pointing to a major top (Chart III-6). Chart III-6A Major Top? We recommend maintaining an underweight allocation to Peru in an EM dedicated equity portfolio. A negative external backdrop - rising U.S. interest rates, a strong dollar and falling commodities prices - constitute a major headwind for this equity market. Fixed income investors with local market exposure should consider betting on curve flattening given the outlook of higher short-term rates and decelerating growth. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 We discussed the domino effect in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, the link is available on page 19. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Desynchronization Compels Currency Adjustments," dated September 20, 2018, the link is available on page 19. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, the link is available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Credicorp constitutes 70% of the Peru MSCI Index. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The long term direction for the pound is higher... ...but as the EU withdrawal bill passes through the U.K. parliament, expect a very hairy ride. The stock markets in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are driven by energy, industrials, and biotech respectively. Upgrade Sweden to neutral and downgrade Denmark to underweight. Think of semiconductors as twenty-first century commodities. Overweight the semiconductor sector versus broader technology indexes. Chart of the WeekBritish Public Opinion On Brexit Is Shifting Feature The Brexit drama is playing out exactly as scripted (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pound Is Following The Brexit Drama In July, we wrote: "The U.K. government's much hyped 'Chequers' proposal for Brexit risks getting a cold shower... the EU27 will almost instantaneously reject the proposed division between goods and services as 'cherry-picking' from its indivisible four freedoms - goods, services, capital, and people... the rejection will be based not just on the EU's founding principles, but also on the practical realities of a modern economy - specifically, the distinction between goods and services has become increasingly blurred." 1 Hence, the Chequers proposal to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic is just wishful thinking: "The Irish border trilemma will remain unsolved, leaving a 'backstop' option of Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market - an outcome that will be politically unpalatable." 2 What happens next? Understanding Brexit In a sense, Brexit is very simple. The EU27 sees only three options for the long-term political and economic relationship between the U.K. and the EU. Remain in the EU (no Brexit). Plug into an off-the-shelf setup, either the European Economic Area (EEA), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), or a permanent customs union, which already establish the EU relationship with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland (soft Brexit). Become a 'third country' to the EU like, for example, Canada (hard Brexit). The first option, to stay in the EU, is politically impossible unless a new U.K. referendum overturned the original referendum's vote to leave. The second option, to join the EEA, EFTA, or permanent customs union is very difficult for Theresa May - because it is strongly opposed by many of the Conservative government's ministers and members of parliament who regard the option as 'Brino' (Brexit in name only). However, in a significant recent development, the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has committed the Labour party to a Brexit that keeps the U.K. in a permanent customs union.3 The third option, to become a 'third country', would very likely require some sort of border in Ireland. As already discussed, the only way to avoid a border would be a perfect alignment between the U.K and EU on tariffs and regulations for goods and services. But then, there would be little point in becoming a third country. Here's the crucial issue. The EU27 does not know which option the U.K. will eventually take, yet it must provide an 'all-weather' safeguard for the Good Friday peace agreement, requiring no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Therefore, the EU27 will need the withdrawal agreement to commit: either the whole of the U.K. to a potentially permanent customs union with the EU; or Northern Ireland to a potentially permanent customs separation from the rest of the U.K. - in effect, breaking up the U.K by creating a border between Britain and Northern Ireland. Clearly, the hard Brexiters and/or Northern Ireland unionist MPs will vote down a withdrawal bill which contains either of these commitments, thereby wiping out Theresa May's slender majority. The intriguing question is: might Labour MPs - or enough of them - vote for a potentially permanent customs union to get the soft Brexit they want? Labour would be torn between the national interest and the party interest, as it would be missing a golden opportunity to topple the Conservative government. If the withdrawal bill musters a majority, it would remove the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit and the pound would rally - because it would liberate the Bank of England to hike interest rates more aggressively (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). If the bill failed, the government and specifically Theresa May would be badly wounded. She might call a general election there and then. Chart I-3Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Chart I-4Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher If May limped on, parliament would nevertheless have the final say on whether to proceed with a no deal Brexit. And the parliamentary arithmetic indicates that a clear majority of MPs would vote against proceeding over the cliff-edge. At this point with the government paralysed, the only way to unlock the paralysis would be to go back to the people. Either in a general election or in a new referendum, the key issue for the public would be a choice between one of the three aforementioned options for the U.K./EU long-term relationship - because by then, it would be clear that those are the only options on offer. Based on a clear recent shift in British public opinion, the preference is more likely to be for a soft (or no) Brexit than to become a third country (Chart of the Week). Bottom Line: The long term direction for the pound is higher but, as the withdrawal bill passes through parliament, expect a very hairy ride. Understanding Scandinavian Stock Markets The Scandinavian countries - Norway, Sweden, and Denmark - have many things in common: their languages, cultures, and lifestyles, to name just a few. However, when it comes to their stock markets, the three countries could not be more different. Looking at the three bourses, each has a defining dominant sector (or sectors) whose market weighting swamps all others. In Norway, oil and gas accounts for over 40 percent of the market; in Sweden, industrials accounts for 30 percent of the market and financials accounts for another 30 percent; and in Denmark, healthcare accounts for 50 percent of the market (Table I-1). Table I-1The Scandinavian Stock Markets Could Not Be More Different! In a sense, the dominant equity market sectors in Norway and Sweden just reflect their economies. Norway has a large energy sector; Sweden specializes in advanced industrial equipment and machinery and it also has very high level of private sector indebtedness, explaining the outsized weighting in banks. However, Denmark's equity market - dominated as it is by Novo Nordisk, which is essentially a biotech company - has little connection with Denmark's economy. The important point is that the four dominant sectors - oil and gas, industrials, financials, and biotech - each outperform or underperform as global (or at least pan-regional) sectors. If oil and gas outperforms, it outperforms everywhere and not just locally. It follows that the relative performance of the four dominant equity sectors drives the relative stock market performances of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Norway versus Sweden = Energy versus Industrials (Chart I-5) Chart I-5Norway Vs. Sweden = Energy Vs. Industrials Norway versus Denmark = Energy versus Biotech (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Norway Vs. Denmark = Energy Vs. Biotech Sweden versus Denmark = Industrials and Financials versus Biotech (Chart I-7) Chart I-7Sweden Vs. Denmark = Industrials And Financials Vs. Biotech Last week, we upgraded some of the more classical cyclical sectors to a relative overweight. Our argument was that if an inflationary impulse is dominating, beaten-down cyclicals have more upside than the more richly-valued equity sectors; and if a disinflationary impulse from higher bond yields is dominating, its main casualty will be the more richly-valued equity sectors. On this basis, our ranking of the four sectors is: Industrials, Financials, Energy, Biotech. Which means the ranking of the Scandinavian stock markets is: Sweden, Norway, Denmark. Bottom Line: From a pan-European perspective, upgrade Sweden to neutral and downgrade Denmark to underweight. Understanding Semiconductors The best way to understand semiconductors is to think of them as twenty-first century commodities. In the twentieth century, many everyday goods and products contained a classical commodity such as copper. Today, the ubiquity of electronic gadgets, devices, and screens contains a twenty-first century equivalent: the microchip. Hence, semiconductors are to the tech world what classical commodities are to the non-tech world. They exhibit exactly the same cycle of relative performance. If, as we expect, beaten-down industrial commodities outperform, it follows that the beaten-down semiconductor sector will outperform broader technology indexes (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Semiconductors Follow The Commodity Cycle Bottom Line: Overweight the semiconductor sector versus technology. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, the sale of a car is no longer the sale of just a good. As car companies often structure the financing of the car purchase, a car purchase can be a hybrid of a good - the car itself, and a service - the financing package. Therefore, a single market for cars requires a single market for both goods and services. 2 The Irish border trilemma comprises: 1. the U.K./EU land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; 2. the Good Friday peace agreement requiring the absence of any physical border within Ireland; 3.the Northern Ireland unionists' refusal to countenance a U.K./EU border at the Irish Sea, which would entail a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. 3 At the Labour Party's just-held 2018 conference, Jeremy Corbyn made a commitment to joining a permanent U.K./EU customs union. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade comes from Down Under. The 25% outperformance of Australian telecoms (driven by Telstra) versus insurers (driven by IAG and AMP) over the past 3 months appears technically extended, with a 65-day fractal dimension at a level that has regularly indicated the start of a countertrend move. Therefore, the recommended trade is short Australian telecoms versus insurers, setting a profit target of 7% and a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long CRB Industrial commodities versus MSCI World Index achieved its profit target very quickly, leaving four open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Duration: Our Fed Policy Loop provides a framework for understanding last week's equity market correction and its implications for future Fed policy. So far, the equity sell-off is not severe enough to deter the Fed. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Credit: With the Fed lifting rates and the market still not priced for the likely pace of hikes, it is highly likely that we will witness further periods where corporate spreads and Treasury yields rise in unison. We recommend steps investors can take to insulate their portfolios from this risk. Inflation: The macroeconomic environment remains highly inflationary. The unemployment rate is very low and wage growth is rising. However, recent trends suggest that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will stay close to its current level, near the Fed's target, for the next six months. This will not alter the Fed's "gradual" +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Feature Chart 1The Second Rate Shock Of 2018 Last week's equity market rout was the second time this year that stocks reacted negatively to a sharp rise in bond yields (Chart 1). As was the case in February, our Fed Policy Loop remains the appropriate framework for understanding the relationship between bond yields and the stock market (Chart 2).1 It can be explained as follows: Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop Step 1: The perception of easy Fed policy fuels strong performance in the stock market. Rising stock prices and "easing financial conditions" cause economic growth to strengthen and sow the seeds of inflation. Step 2: Equity investors catch a whiff of inflation and start to price-in a more restrictive monetary environment. This leads to a stock market correction. Step 3: Falling stock prices and "tightening financial conditions" cause the Fed to downgrade its economic outlook and adopt a more dovish policy stance. Return To Step 1. The Equity Correction For Bond Investors At this juncture, the important question for bond investors is whether financial conditions have tightened enough to prompt a slower pace of rate hikes from the Fed. If so, then it might be appropriate to buy the dip in the bond market. We think such a move would be premature, for two reasons. First, the increase in bond yields that spooked the equity market was concentrated at the long-end of the curve and was fueled by Fed Chairman Powell's comment that the funds rate is "a long way from neutral." A steeper yield curve offsets some of the financial conditions tightening caused by falling stock prices (Chart 3). This is because it signals that monetary policy is becoming more accommodative - the fed funds rate is further below neutral than previously thought. This intuition is confirmed by the bounce in gold, a move that often coincides with an upward rerating of the neutral fed funds rate.2 Chart 3Steeper Curve Will Reassure The Fed Second, the amount of financial market pain that the Fed can tolerate depends on the economic environment. Our Fed Monitor is an indicator that is designed to signal whether the Fed should be hiking or cutting interest rates (Chart 4). It consists of 44 variables that can be grouped into three categories: Chart 4The BCA Fed Monitor Economic growth indicators (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation indicators (Chart 4, panel 4). Financial conditions indicators (Chart 4, bottom panel). The overall Fed Monitor is currently deep in positive territory, signaling that rate hikes are appropriate. This is true despite the fact that the financial conditions component of the monitor has been falling (tightening) since the beginning of the year. Last week's equity market drop will not be reflected in the indicator until the end of the month, so further downside in the financial conditions component is forthcoming. But so far, tighter financial conditions have barely made a dent in the overall Fed Monitor because they have been offset by rising economic growth and stronger inflation. The conclusion is that the Fed is able to tolerate more market pain when growth is strong and inflation is high. Viewed through this lens, it is clear that a lot more market pain is required before the Fed backs away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. In fact, the Fed likely views some tightening of financial conditions as desirable, as long as the tightening doesn't severely impede the economic outlook. Just last week New York Fed President John Williams said: Normalization of the monetary policy, I think, has the added benefit of reducing somewhat, on the margin, some of the risk of imbalances in financial markets.3 While a few weeks ago, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted: The past few times unemployment fell to levels as low as those projected over the next year, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation.4 In other words, the Fed is increasingly cognizant of the fact that higher interest rates might be necessary to prevent excessive risk-taking in financial markets, even if inflation stays well contained near target. Unless financial conditions tighten so much that they cause the reading from our Fed Monitor to hook down, the Fed will be inclined to view the market correction as healthy. It is also important to note that while a large increase in long-maturity Treasury yields prompted last week's stock market action, the short-end of the yield curve didn't move much at all. In fact, overnight index swap forwards show that the market is just barely priced for three rate hikes during the next 12 months. According to our golden rule of bond investing, if you expect the Fed to lift rates by more than what is priced in for the next 12 months, you should keep portfolio duration low.5 Bottom Line: Last week's equity market sell-off is not enough to prompt the Fed to back away from its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. On The Correlation Between Yields And Spreads It wasn't just the stock market that struggled to digest higher Treasury yields last week. Corporate bond spreads also widened, particularly in the high-yield credit tiers (Chart 5). As with equities, this is the second time in 2018 that credit spreads widened sharply alongside higher Treasury yields. Chart 5Credit Also Struggling With Higher Rates Credit spreads and Treasury yields tend to be negatively correlated, a feature that benefits bond investors by reducing the volatility in corporate bond yields and total returns. But, as evidenced by last week's price moves, the correlation does occasionally turn positive. This is particularly damaging during sell-offs when both the rate and spread components of corporate bond yields rise. Chart 6 shows the frequency of negative and positive yield/spread correlations since 1994, using 3-month investment horizons. It shows that yields and spreads were negatively correlated in 64% of 3-month periods. Yields fell alongside tighter spreads in 23% of cases, while yields and spreads rose together only 13% of the time. Chart 6The Correlation Between Yields And Spreads Is Typically Negative Since those periods when both yields and spreads rise in unison are particularly damaging for bond investors, it is worth exploring them in more detail. Table 1 lists all 13 quarters since 1994 when junk spreads and duration-matched Treasury yields rose together. Using the logic of our Fed Policy Loop, we also identify three risk factors that might be associated with those periods. The main idea being that yields and spreads are likely to rise together in periods when the market starts to price-in much more restrictive monetary policy, and an earlier end to the economic recovery. The three risk factors we identify are: Table 1Periods When Both Treasury Yields And Junk Spreads Rose Since 1994 Whether the Fed raised interest rates during the investment horizon. Whether our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter increased during the investment horizon, meaning that the market priced-in a more aggressive near-term rate hike path. Whether the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose during the investment horizon. Higher long-dated inflation expectations could cause the Fed to respond with a more restrictive monetary policy. The single most important risk factor is whether the Fed raised rates during the investment horizon. Nine of the 13 episodes coincided with a Fed rate hike, and three of the four episodes that didn't coincide with a rate hike occurred between Q2 2013 and Q4 2015. The fed funds rate was pinned at zero during that period, but the Fed was starting to turn hawkish by backing away from QE and preparing for liftoff. This leaves the second quarter of 2007 as the only true outlier. The Fed did not lift rates during this period, but it is clear that markets were spooked by overly restrictive Fed policy all the same. The 2/10 Treasury slope was only 7 bps at the start of the quarter, signaling that monetary policy was already quite restrictive. Meanwhile, long-dated inflation expectations rose during the quarter and the market went from discounting 60 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months to only 17 bps. An inflationary shock when monetary policy is already restrictive is an environment where yields and spreads are very likely to rise at the same time. An upward move in our 12-month discounter is also associated with periods of rising yields and spreads in 9 out of 13 cases. This risk factor didn't work in Q4 2005 or Q2 2006, but once again it is quite clear that markets were spooked by overly restrictive monetary policy in those periods. The yield curve was inverted in both of those quarters, and the Fed lifted rates despite an inverted yield curve. That combination sends a clear signal to markets that the Fed is trying to choke off the recovery. The 12-month discounter also failed to send the correct signal in Q3 1999 and Q2 2000. In those cases the culprit appears to be a large jump in long-dated inflation expectations while the Fed was in the midst of a rate hike cycle. Since rate hikes should dampen inflation, rising inflation expectations suggest that rate hikes might need to speed up. Thinking about the current environment, we are very much in the danger zone where yields and spreads could rise at the same time. The Fed is in the midst of a rate hike cycle and the market is still not priced for quarterly rate hikes to continue for the next 12 months. Finally, long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates are almost back to the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with "well-anchored" inflation expectations (Chart 7). The higher long-dated breakevens get, the more likely it is that the Fed will respond forcefully to further increases. Chart 7Almost Re-Anchored With all three of our risk factors present, it is highly likely that we will see more episodes where credit spreads widen and Treasury yields rise. The risk will only dissipate once the full extent of the Fed's rate hike cycle is reflected in the Treasury curve, but we are not there yet. While this is not a great environment for bond investors, there are steps investors can take to limit the damage from periods of rising spreads and yields. First, investors should maintain portfolio duration at below-benchmark. Second, while it is too early in the cycle to completely abandon credit, a more defensive posture is advisable. We recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product, focused on the higher-quality credit tiers.6 To the extent possible, investors should also seek to focus their spread exposure at the long-end of the maturity spectrum, while also limiting overall portfolio duration by favoring the short-end of the Treasury curve.7 Inflation Uptrend On Hold Lost in the shuffle amidst last week's market turmoil, the consumer price index (CPI) for September was released and it delivered a soft month-over-month print for the second month in a row. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that the year-over-year trend in core CPI rose rapidly earlier in the year, but now appears to be leveling off. We do not envision a meaningful deceleration in core CPI, but it seems likely that the year-over-year rate of change will stay near current levels for the next six months. Chart 8Core Inflation & Pipeline Pressures Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator remains consistent with rising inflationary pressures in the economy, but it has softened of late. This is mostly due to weaker commodity prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). Further, our Base Effects Indicator - based on rates of change in the core CPI that have already been realized - is now consistent with a lower year-over-year core CPI growth rate six months from now (Chart 9).8 Chart 9Expect Year-Over-Year Core CPI To Flatten-Off, Or Even Decline Looking at the main components of core CPI, the last two monthly prints have been dragged down by the core goods component, with most of the weakness in apparel and used vehicles (Chart 10). This could reverse in the near-term as core goods prices catch up with import prices, which have been rising for some time. However, non-oil import prices have decelerated recently, on the back of a stronger dollar. In other words, any near-term increase in core goods inflation will probably not last very long. Chart 10Core CPI Components The core services excluding shelter component continues to have the most potential upside, since it is highly geared to rising wage growth. Shelter inflation, the largest component of core CPI, has been flat for some time and our models suggest this will continue to be the case for the next six months. Bottom Line: The macroeconomic environment remains highly inflationary. The unemployment rate is very low and wage growth is rising. However, recent trends suggest that the year-over-year growth rate in core CPI will stay close to its current level, near the Fed's target, for the next six months. This will not alter the Fed's "gradual" +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?" dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/williams-says-fed-rate-hikes-helping-curb-financial-risk-taking 4https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180912a.htm 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty," dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync," dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges," dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

As promised in early September, this is the third installment of our four part Indicators series. In this Special Report, we follow a similar script to Part II but instead of sectors, we now cover the S&P 500, non-financial equities, cyclicals/defensives, small/large and growth/value, and document the most important Indicators in the same four broad categories (where applicable): earnings, financial statement reported data, valuations and technicals. Once again this is by no means exhaustive, but contains a plethora of Indicators we deem significant in aiding us in our decision making process of setting/changing a view on the overall market, cyclicals/defensives portfolio bent, and size and style preference. As a reminder, the charts in this Special Report are also available through BCA's Analytics platform for seamless continual updates. Finally, we are still aiming before the end of 2018, to conclude our Indicators series with Part IV that would feature our most sought after Macro Indicators per the eleven GICS1 S&P 500 sectors, along with value/growth, small/large and cyclicals/defensives. We trust you will find this comprehensive Indicator chartbook useful and insightful. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Dulce Cruz, Senior Analyst dulce@bcaresearch.com S&P 500 Chart 1S&P 500: Earnings Indicators Chart 2S&P 500: Earnings Indicators Chart 3S&P 500: ROE And Its Components Chart 4S&P 500: Financial Statement Indicators Chart 5S&P 500: Financial Statement Indicators Chart 6S&P 500: Valuation Indicators Chart 7S&P 500: Technical Indicators Non-Financial Broad Market Chart 8U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market: ROE And Its Components Chart 9U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market: Financial Statement Indicators Chart 10U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market: Financial Statement Indicators Chart 11U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market: Valuation Indicators Chart 12U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market: Technical Indicators S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Chart 13Cyclicals Vs Defensives: Earnings Indicators Chart 14Cyclicals Vs Defensives: Earnings Indicators Chart 15Cyclicals Vs Defensives: ROE And Its Components Chart 16Cyclicals Vs Defensives: Financial Statement Indicators Chart 17Cyclicals Vs Defensives: Financial Statement Indicators Chart 18Cyclicals Vs Defensives: Valuation Indicators Chart 19Cyclicals Vs Defensives: Technical Indicators S&P 600 Vs. S&P 500 Chart 20S&P 600 Vs.S&P 500: Earnings Indicators Chart 21S&P 600 Vs.S&P 500: Earnings Indicators Chart 22S&P 600 Vs.S&P 500: Valuation Indicators Chart 23S&P 600 Vs.S&P 500: Technical Indicators S&P 500 Growth Vs. Value Chart 24S&P 500 Growth Vs.Value: Earnings Indicators Chart 25S&P 500 Growth Vs.Value: Earnings Indicators Chart 26S&P 500 Growth Vs Value: Valuation Indicators Chart 27S&P 500 Growth Vs.Value: Technical Indicators Table 1S&P 500 Growth/S&P 500 Value Sector Comparison Table Table 2S&P 600/S&P 500 Sector Comparison Table

Highlights Our October house view meeting was mostly uneventful, ... : The backup in bond yields has so far proceeded in line with our expectations, and the BCA consensus is that they have not risen enough to pose a fundamental threat to equities. ... in contrast to the action in global equities: Single-day declines of 3-4% in headline equity indexes around the world gave investors a jolt, and revived the too-far/too-long talk about equity gains with a new intensity. We do not believe that the end of the U.S. equity bull market is at hand, ... : The components of our recession indicator do not suggest that a recession, or a bear market, is on the horizon. It appears that the fiscal stimulus package will keep the expansion going into 2020. ... but thinking through the factors that would lead us to downgrade equities will help put the ongoing data flow into context: In addition to the elements of our bear-market/recession indicator, we consider items that could pressure earnings, spur inflation, or indicate the presence of widespread exuberance. Feature BCA's strategists held their October View Meeting last Tuesday. The monthly meeting gathers all of the editorial staff together to determine the firm's internal consensus on the future direction of markets. The results are published in the form of our House View Matrix, and the discussion and debate of the rationales underpinning our views inform the content of the individual services' publications. The agenda this month focused squarely on interest rates, and consisted of two basic questions: 1) Why are Treasury yields rising, and what does it mean for other asset classes? 2) How worried should we be about the surge in Italian bond yields? Neither question provoked much disagreement. The room broadly agreed that Treasury yields have been rising for the welcome reason that robust U.S. growth calls for higher rates. The Fed has been doing its part at the short end via its gradual quarter-point-per-quarter rate-hike pace, and the bond market got into the act two weeks ago, breaking out to a new seven-year high on robust data releases and Chairman Powell's "long-way-from-neutral" remark (Chart 1). Our bond strategists expect that the Fed will walk back Powell's seemingly off-the-cuff comment, but its substance meshes easily with our assessment of a burgeoning economy that may well overheat in the face of supply constraints. Chart 1Breakout As we have recently argued, the implications for equities depend much more on the level of rates than on their direction. Until real rates begin to squeeze the economy, history suggests that their impact on stocks will be benign. All else equal, higher real rates are a by-product of a stronger economy, and increased economic strength has helped stocks more than the larger haircuts on future cash flows, mandated by a higher discount rate, have hurt them. Using real potential GDP as a proxy for the level at which higher rates would slow the economy, we estimate that the bull market won't meet its demise until the 10-year Treasury yield reaches 3.75-4%.1 Consensus was quickly reached on the Italian question. Although the situation bears close monitoring, BCA does not deem Italy to be a flash point for global financial markets. Our base case is that bond markets can easily handle the deficit back-and-forth between Rome and Brussels, and that the more worrisome outcome - Italy's exit from the Eurozone - is increasingly remote. A bond selloff could become self-perpetuating, but our Global Investment Strategy service believes that European policy makers would intervene if Italian sovereign yields broke above 4%.2 Some strategists expressed interest in downgrading the equity view to underweight. Although a considerable majority voted to maintain BCA's neutral stance, the final stages of the meeting were devoted to debating the merits of a more bearish take. That discussion led us to think about the factors that might encourage us to downgrade our view on equities. The rest of this week's report lays out those factors in the form of an equity-downgrade checklist to accompany the rates checklist we rolled out last month. Together, the two checklists will provide a real-time guide to the evolution of our key asset-allocation views. Our Base-Case Bull-Market Denouement While U.S. Investment Strategy has been slightly more constructive than the BCA consensus, we joined in the house-view downgrade of global equities in June without lament. We did so on the grounds that the latter stages of expansions and bull markets can be treacherous, and significant geopolitical uncertainties could make the current iteration especially so. Last week's swoon, and its remarkable intra-day equity volatility, revealed the wisdom of staying within sight of the shore. We nonetheless believe that it is too early to underweight equities and spread product. We remain constructive on the outlook because we expect the monetary policy cycle, the business cycle, and the credit cycle have yet to run their course. All three will continue to provide an equity tailwind for roughly another year, while allowing spread product to generate excess returns over Treasuries for another quarter or two. Our base case is that the cycles will turn once aggregate demand, ginned up by fiscal stimulus, runs into capacity constraints, stoking inflation pressures and compelling the Fed to impose more restrictive policy settings. Once tight policy is in place, the equity bull market will come to an end, followed by the expansion. The Equity Downgrade Checklist Recessions and bear markets regularly coincide (Chart 2), as multiple de-rating is typically not enough to effect a 20% decline on its own. Earnings have to contract as well, and they typically only do so within the context of a recession. The three components of our recession indicator3 - an inverted yield curve (Chart 3); year-over-year contraction in the index of leading economic indicators (Chart 4); and tight policy, defined as a target fed funds rate greater than the equilibrium fed funds rate (Chart 5) - comprise the first three items on our checklist (Table 1). We round out the recession section by watching for an uptick in the headline unemployment rate, which has led, or coincided with, every postwar recession (Chart 6). Chart 2Bear Markets And Recessions Tend To Coincide Chart 3The Yield Curve Has Called 8 Of The Last 7 Recessions... Chart 4... And So Have Leading Economic Indicators Chart 5Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Policy Is Tight Table 1Equity Downgrade Checklist Chart 6Beware An Uptick In The Unemployment Rate There is more to equity investing than trying to skirt bear markets, however. Our checklist therefore also focuses on elements that could induce corrections (declines of at least 10% that don't reach the 20% bear-market threshold). We focus on three broad categories of variables: those that could pressure earnings growth by undermining revenues, profit margins or both; those that promote uncomfortably high inflation; and those that indicate unsustainable investor over exuberance. We do not have any preconceptions about which, or how many, boxes would have be checked to inspire a downgrade; we are simply trying to obtain a holistic sense of the equity outlook. Earnings Headwinds Employee compensation constitutes the single largest component of corporate expenses, making wage increases a direct threat to profit margins. We view the employment cost index, including benefits, as offering the most comprehensive and accurate insight into companies' wage bill. It has been rising, albeit slowly, and the Fed would like to see it rise even more to ensure that the expansion's gains are shared more broadly across the income spectrum (Chart 7). It would seemingly be happy with wage growth in the mid-3% range, but anything beyond that, if not supported by an uptick in productivity, could lead to faster and/or larger rate hikes.4 Chart 7The Fed Wants Wages Higher, But Not Too Much Higher A stronger dollar makes American goods less competitive in the global marketplace. Extended advances confront U.S.-based multinationals with an unpalatable choice: cut prices to maintain share, or accept lesser share to maintain margins. Currency moves impact corporate profits with a lag, however, so the initial effects of the dollar's 7% advance since mid-February should only begin to surface in the third-quarter earnings season that kicked off on Friday. S&P 500 constituents have been dining out for a year on the dollar's 14% 2017 slide, and a march to 100 and beyond will give rise to a multi-quarter headwind (Chart 8). Chart 8From Tailwind To Headwind Interest accounts for a meaningful share of corporate expenses, especially given the post-crisis rise in corporate debt outstanding. Using BBB-rated bonds as a proxy for overall corporate indebtedness, we view 4.8 to 5%, a level corporations last contended with eight years (and a considerable amount of issuance) ago, as a range that might cause some indigestion (Chart 9). Chart 9Debt Service Costs Are Rising Rising wages squeeze profit margins, but they won't necessarily cut into profits if top-line growth is robust enough to overcome the cost increase. Wage gains have the potential to set off a virtuous circle in which spending increases enough to promote expanded payrolls and capital expenditures, leading to more spending, and so on. An elevated savings rate suggests that households have the capacity to help fuel the fire (Chart 10). If they decide to save that money instead, perhaps with an eye on the metastasizing pile of student debt, it could dampen the multiplier effect of higher wages. Chart 10Plenty Of Dry Powder For Consumption We do not have a hard-and-fast preconception for the point at which deterioration in the emerging markets would be felt in the U.S. Given the relatively closed U.S. economy - the oceans bordering it are big - we expect that the EM distress would have to be quite acute. Full-on decoupling is a chimera, however, even for the fairly insulated U.S., and weakened global demand will eventually make itself felt here. A major credit event or two in some of the larger EM economies would likely accelerate the process. Inflation Now that full employment has been achieved, and then some, the price-stability element of the Fed's mandate will come to the fore as the binding policy constraint. The Fed is still trying to nudge realized inflation and inflation expectations higher, to be sure, but its bias could turn on a dime. Force-feeding sizable fiscal stimulus to an economy already operating at capacity is a recipe for fueling upward inflation pressures. We expect that the Fed will eventually be obliged to hike rates at faster than a gradual pace to get the inflation genie back into the bottle. The Fed's 2% inflation target applies to the core PCE deflator, and growth above the top of the 2.5% range that's held for 20-plus years might make it uneasy if the inflation slope proves to be as slippery as we expect (Chart 11). Regarding inflation expectations, we are keeping a close eye on the long-maturity TIPS break-evens, the expected level of inflation implied by the difference in yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasuries. Our bond strategists peg 2.3-2.5% as the break-even level consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, and expect that the Fed will turn more hawkish if break-evens breach the top end of the range (Chart 12). Inflation matters to the investing public, as well, and earnings multiples would surely contract if inflation fears break out among the general populace. Headline CPI growth that looked like it could persist in the mid-3s could easily spark a correction (Chart 13). Chart 11Mission Impossible(?): Limit Inflation ... Chart 12... While Nudging Inflation Expectations Higher Chart 13CPI Matters, Too Irrational Exuberance It is not easy to recognize over exuberance in real time, but it is a regular feature of cycle peaks. In a bull market that is already the longest in the postwar era, and an expansion that's on track to establish a postwar longevity record of its own, it would be surprising if things didn't ultimately get silly. We will have to rely on judgment to assess the overall climate of recklessness, but we can objectively track valuation levels relative to history. We are not troubled by a 15- or 16-handle forward P/E multiple (Chart 14). While other standard valuation metrics are elevated (Chart 15), they typically only compel our attention at +/- 2-standard-deviation extremes. Chart 14Nothing Irrational About P/E ... Chart 15... Or Other Valuation Metrics, On Balance Investment Implications There is a natural tension between market forecasts and investment strategy. The future is unknowable, and it is rarely prudent to position portfolios all-in based on necessarily uncertain forecasts. The divergence should be especially wide in the latter stages of a cycle, when a reversal could be right around the corner. Even though we are constructive on the economic and policy backdrops, we are positioned conservatively, equal-weighting equities, underweighting fixed income, and overweighting cash. We have created a checklist to track what it would take to make us turn bearish on equities because our inclination is to lean bullish, and try to capture what may be the last outsized returns for a while. Markets are never one-way, however, and we could flip back to overweight upon a 10-15% peak-to-trough decline if nothing altered our view about the bull market's remaining lifespan. We could also return to an equity overweight at current levels if Chinese policymakers were to pursue stimulus with the pedal-to-the-metal urgency that characterized their efforts in 2008 and 2016. We could even try to play a melt-up, with tight stops, if we thought one was about to take hold. We are keeping an open mind, as an investor always should. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the September 24, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "When Will Higher Rates Hurt Stocks?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the October 12, 2018 Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Bears Maul Goldilocks," available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Equity Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Fed Chair Jay Powell recently said that wage growth should approximately equal the sum of inflation and productivity gains. Given the 2% inflation target, and 1% trend productivity growth, the FOMC would likely be content with wage gains modestly above 3%.

Highlights Rising U.S. bond yields will continue to put downward pressure on global stocks in the near term, but will not trigger an equity bear market until rates reach restrictive territory. We are still at least 12 months away from that point. The blowout in Italian bond yields has further to go, which will also weigh on global risk assets. Nevertheless, we would buy BTPs for a tactical trade if the 10-year yield rose above 4%, because at that level EU policymakers will call out the fire engines. We downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral in June, while maintaining our bias for DM stocks over EM stocks. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish again if global stocks were to fall by 8% from current levels. Remain cyclically underweight interest rate duration. We would move to neutral on duration if the U.S. 10-year yield were to rise to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Feature Bond Yields: Up, Up, And Away Global risk assets remained on the back foot this week. The MSCI All-Country World stock market index has now fallen by 6.3% in dollar terms since last Wednesday. Even the mighty S&P 500 has finally buckled under the pressure. The vulnerability of U.S. stocks had been accumulating beneath the surface for some time, as evidenced by the fact that the advance-decline line has been deteriorating since the late summer. The small cap Russell 2000 is down 11.3% from its August 31st highs (Charts 1A& 1B). Chart 1ABreadth Deteriorated In The Lead-Up To The Correction Chart 1BStocks Under Pressure Bond yields usually fall when equities swoon. This time around, it is the increase in bond yields itself that has undermined stocks. In the U.S., yields have risen in response to better-than-expected growth, a wider budget deficit, rising oil prices, and an increasingly hawkish Fed. In Italy, worries about debt sustainability have been the primary driver of rising yields. Neither factor spells doom for global risk assets. However, a period of indigestion is likely over the coming weeks, which could see global equities go down before they go up again. The U.S. Economy: Too Much Winning? We have argued for much of this year that investors were underappreciating the extent to which the Federal Reserve can raise rates without choking off growth. The past few weeks have seen a growing recognition among investors that the Fed may be behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. This has led to a steepening in the expected path of U.S. short-term rates, which, together with an increase in the term premium, have pushed up yields at the longer-dated maturities. Both better economic data and Fedspeak contributed to the bond sell-off. On the data front, the non-manufacturing ISM index clocked in at 61.6. The all-important employment component of the index hit a record high. Confirming the encouraging labor market signal from the ISM, the unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.68% in September. While average hourly earnings ticked down to 2.75% on a year-over-year basis, this was entirely due to base effects. On a month-over-month basis, average hourly earnings have risen by 0.3% for three straight months. If this trend continues, the year-over-year rate will rise to 3.2% by the end of this year. Tellingly, recent wage growth has been concentrated among workers at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 2). This is important because not only do the wages of low-income workers correlate better with labor market slack than those of high-income workers, but low-income workers are also more likely to spend the bulk of their paychecks. Chart 2Wage Growth Has Accelerated At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Higher wage growth will boost consumer spending. Indeed, it is probable that consumption will rise more than income, given that the personal savings rate has plenty of scope to fall from the current elevated level of 6.6%. Rising wages will incentivize companies to invest more in labor-saving technologies, translating into an increase in capital spending.1 Add in ongoing fiscal stimulus, and we have a recipe for an overheated economy. Starstruck No More As of today, the market has priced in one Fed rate hike in December but only two rate hikes in 2019 (Chart 3). Investors expect no rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. That still seems implausible to us, which suggests that the bond sell-off has further to go. Chart 3The Market Still Thinks The Fed Can't Raise Rates Above 3% In contrast to the past, the Fed no longer seems interested in talking down rate expectations. Speaking with Judy Woodruff at The Atlantic Festival, Chairman Powell stated the Fed "may go past neutral, but we are a long way from neutral at this point, probably."2 Even uber-dove Chicago Fed President Charles Evans appears to have jettisoned his worries about deflation, noting in a speech last Wednesday that "I am more comfortable with the inflation outlook today than I have been for the past several years."3 The Fed has also increasingly downplayed the importance of estimates of the neutral rate of interest, the concept on which the long-term "dots" in the Summary of Economic Projections are based. The Fed's new mantra is that economic data, rather than some theoretical model, should guide monetary policy. Ironically, it was New York Fed President John Williams, who developed one of the most widely used models of r-star, the eponymously named Holston-Laubach-Williams model, that best articulated the Fed's position. At a speech last Monday, Williams argued that the neutral rate of interest, or r-star, has "gotten too much attention in commentary about Fed policy." He went on to say that "Back when interest rates were well below neutral, r-star appropriately acted as a pole star for navigation. But, as we have gotten closer to the range of estimates of neutral, what appeared to be a bright point of light is really a fuzzy blur, reflecting the inherent uncertainty in measuring r-star."4 Trump And Bonds President Trump was quick to blame the Fed for this week's stock market sell-off. Within the span of 24 hours, he used the words "crazy," "loco," "ridiculous," "too cute," "too aggressive," and "big mistake" to describe recent Fed policy. We doubt Trump's rhetoric will have any immediate effect on Fed decision-making. But even if it did sway the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes, the result will be higher bond yields, not lower yields. This is simply because any further delays in raising rates will lead to even more overheating, and ultimately, higher inflation and the need for higher rates down the road. Bond Sell-Off Will Produce A Correction In Stocks, Not A Bear Market At the height of this week's bond sell-off, the 10-year Treasury yield breached its 200-month moving average for the first time since ... October 1987 (Chart 4). While that sounds pretty ominous, keep in mind that the 10-year yield had reached almost 10% on the eve of the 1987 stock market crash, or about 6% in real terms. Chart 4Two Lines Meet After Three Decades As my colleague, Doug Peta, discussed two weeks ago, it is the level of interest rates that tends to matter more for stocks rather than the change in rates.5 Specifically, equity returns tend to be lowest at times when monetary policy is already in restrictive territory (Chart 5 and Tables 1 and 2). That was the case in 1987. It is not the case today. Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health... Table 2...Especially In Real Terms The fact that stocks do worse in environments where monetary policy is tight makes perfect sense. A restrictive monetary policy is usually a prelude to a recession. As Chart 6 illustrates, bear markets and recessions almost always coincide, with the latter usually leading the former by about six-to-twelve months. None of our favorite leading recession indicators are flashing red now (Chart 7). Even the yield curve has steepened in recent weeks. Chart 6Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Still, higher long-term bond yields do reduce the long-term attractiveness of stocks compared with bonds. The S&P 500 earnings yield has risen modestly since 2016 due to the fact that earnings have grown somewhat more quickly than equity prices. However, the U.S. real 10-year yield has surged by almost 120 basis points over this period. On balance, this has caused the equity risk premium to decline (Chart 8).6 In order to bring the equity risk premium back down to mid-2016 levels, the S&P 500 would need to fall by about 15% from today's levels. We do not expect stocks to fall by that much, partly because the economic environment is more robust than back then, but a further drop of 5%-to-10% from current levels is certainly plausible. Chart 7A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent Chart 8Stocks Versus Bonds Italy: Heading For A Debt Crisis? The rise in Treasury yields has reduced the attractiveness of other global government bond markets, causing them to sell off in sympathy. Notably, German bund yields have increased by 33 basis points since their May lows (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Bond Yields Moving Higher Rising German bund yields are bad news for Italy. All things equal, a higher "risk free" bund yield implies a higher Italian bond yield. To make matters worse, as Italian borrowing costs have risen, the perceived likelihood that Italy will be unable to repay its debt has increased. This has caused the spread between German bunds and Italian BTPs to widen, thereby magnifying the effect on Italian bond yields from the increase in risk-free yields. All this has happened at the worst possible moment. Italy's populist government and the European Commission are locked in a battle of wills over next year's budget. The Italian government is targeting a fiscal deficit of 2.4% of GDP for 2019, compared with a deficit of 0.8% that the outgoing caretaker government had proposed in May. Strictly speaking, the new deficit target is still consistent with the 3% limit under the Maastricht Treaty. Nevertheless, it is still causing consternation in Brussels. There are at least three reasons for this: While the government's program has a lot of specifics about how it will increase the deficit - more public investment; a universal minimum income scheme; the ability to retire earlier than under current law; corporate tax cuts; no VAT hike in 2019, etc. - it does not specify which items in the budget will be cut. The program also provides few details on revenue measures, other than proposing a one-off tax amnesty, which will arguably reduce tax receipts over the long haul. The proposed budget assumes real GDP growth of 1.5% in 2019. This is higher than the May projection of 1.4%, and well above the IMF's most recent projection of 1%. The government's real GDP projections for 2020-21 are also about 0.7 percentage points above the IMF's estimates. While Italy's proposed fiscal deficit is below the Maastricht Treaty limit, its current debt-to-GDP ratio of 132% is well above the ceiling of 60% (Chart 10). This implies that Italy should be aiming for a smaller deficit target than what it is currently proposing. Chart 10Italy's Public Debt Mountain We expect the Italian government to ultimately acquiesce to the EU's demands, but not before the bond vigilantes have pushed them into a corner. For their part, the EU establishment would love nothing more than to embarrass the Five Star-Lega coalition in order to send a message to voters across Europe about the dangers of voting for populist parties. This means that the Italian 10-year yield may need to break above 4% - the level at which Italian banks would likely be technically insolvent based on the market value of their BTP holdings - before a compromise is reached. We would put on a tactical trade to buy 10-year BTPs at that level, but not before then. Investment Conclusions Goldilocks will survive, but the next couple of months will be challenging. Our soon-to-be-launched MacroQuant model is signaling a bearish outlook for stocks over the next 30 days (Chart 11). On the bond side, the model currently pegs the fair value for the U.S. 10-year yield at 3.7% (Chart 12). Bond sentiment is quite bearish at the moment, which makes a brief countertrend bond rally quite likely. However, the cyclical trend in yields remains to the upside. Chart 11MacroQuant* Recommends That Caution Is Warranted Towards Equities Chart 12MacroQuant Sees 10-Year Treasury Yields Still Below Fair Value We stated last week that investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets. We continue to favor this more cautious stance. For the first time in over a decade, short-term U.S. rates are above the dividend yield on the S&P 500 (Chart 13). Holding a bit more cash is finally an attractive option, at least for U.S.-based investors. Chart 13Cash Anyone? If the sell-off in global equities continues, it will present a buying opportunity, given that the next major global economic downturn is probably at least another two years away. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on stocks again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% from current levels.7 We would recommend that investors move from an underweight to a neutral interest rate duration position in global bond portfolios if the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield rose to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that additional investment spending will raise aggregate supply, but normally it takes a while for that to happen. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see "WATCH: Powell says Fed is focused on 'controlling the controllable,' not politics," PBS News Hour, October 3, 2018; and Jeff Cox, "Powell says we're 'a long way' from neutral on interest rates, indicating more hike are coming," CNBC, October 3, 2018. 3 Charles Evans, "Monetary Policy 2.0?" OMFIF City Lecture on the U.S. Economic Outlook, London, England, October 3, 2018. 4 John C. Williams, "Remarks at the 42nd Annual Central Banking Seminar," Bank for International Settlements, October 1, 2018. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "When Will Higher Rates Hurt Stocks?" dated September 24, 2018; and Special Report, "Revisiting The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated September 3, 2018. 6 For this exercise, we define the equity risk premium as the difference between the S&P 500 earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year bond yield (using CPI swaps as our measure of expected inflation). 7 The perils of writing a report during a week when markets are moving fast. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades