Equities

Highlights U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, recent market action is beginning to resemble a classic late cycle blow-off phase. The fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. The S&P 500 could return 14% or more this year. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018. Valuation is stretched and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy. This month we compare valuation across the major asset classes. U.S. equities are the most overvalued, followed by gold, raw industrials and EM assets. Oil is still close to fair value. Long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. Investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but a risk management approach means that they should not try to squeeze out the last few percentage points of return. In terms of the sequencing of the exit from risk, the most consistent lead/lag relationship relative to previous tops in the equity market is provided by U.S. corporate bonds. For this reason, we are likely to take profits on corporates before equities. EM assets are already at underweight. We still see a window for the U.S. dollar to appreciate, although by only about 5%. A lot of good news is discounted in the euro, peripheral core inflation is slowing and ECB policymakers are getting nervous. Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. The economy and inflation should justify four Fed rate hikes in 2018 no matter the makeup. The bond bear phase will continue. Feature Chart I-1Investors Are Giddy U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, though, recent market action is beginning to resemble the classic late cycle blow-off phase. Such blow-offs can be highly profitable, but also make it more difficult to properly time the market top. Our base case is that the fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018 and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy (Chart I-1). These indicators include investor sentiment, our speculation index, and the bull-to-bear ratio. Net S&P earnings revisions and the U.S. economic surprise index are also extremely elevated, while equity and bond implied volatility are near all-time lows. From a contrarian perspective, these observations suggest that a lot of good news is discounted and that the market is vulnerable to even slight disappointments. It is also a bad sign that our Revealed Preference Indicator moved off of its bullish equity signal in January (see Section III for more details). Meanwhile, central banks are beginning to take away the punchbowl as global economic slack dissipates. This is all late-cycle stuff. Equity valuation does not help investors time the peak in markets, but it does tell us something about downside risk and medium-term expected returns. The Shiller P/E ratio has surged above 30 (Chart I-2). Chart I-3 highlights that, historically, average total returns were negligible over the subsequent 10-year period when the Shiller P/E was in the 30-40 range. Granted, the Shiller P/E will likely fall mechanically later this year as the collapse of earnings in 2008 begins to drop out of the 10-year EPS calculation. Nonetheless, even the BCA Composite Valuation indicator, which includes some metrics that account for extremely low bond yields, surpassed +1 standard deviations in January (our threshold for overvaluation; Chart I-2, bottom panel). An overvaluation signal means that investors should be biased to take profits early. Chart I-2BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma Chart I-3Expected Returns Given Starting Point Shiller P/E As we highlighted in our 2018 Outlook Report, long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but we need to be vigilant in terms of scouring for signals to take profits. A risk management approach means that investors should not try to get the last few percentage points of return before the peak. U.S. Earnings And Repatriation Before we turn to the timing and sequence of our exit from risk assets, we will first update our thoughts on the earnings cycle. Fourth quarter U.S. earnings season is still in its early innings, but the banking sector has set an upbeat tone. S&P 500 profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS growth estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher (from 12% growth to 16%) in a mere three weeks on the back of Congress' cut to the corporate tax rate.1 U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter, but remain at a high level on the back of decent corporate pricing power. A pick-up in productivity growth into year-end helped as well. Our short-term profit model remains extremely upbeat (Chart I-4). The positive profit outlook for the first half of the year is broadly based across sectors as well, according to the recently updated EPS forecast models from BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service.2 The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. Studies of the 2004 repatriation legislation show that most of the funds "brought home" were paid out to shareholders, mostly in the form of buybacks. A NBER report estimated that for every dollar repatriated, 92 cents was subsequently paid out to shareholders in one form or another. The surge in buybacks occurred in 2005, according to the U.S. Flow of Funds accounts and a proxy using EPS growth less total dollar earnings growth for the S&P 500 (Chart I-5). The contribution to EPS growth from buybacks rose to more than 3 percentage points at the peak in 2005. Chart I-4Profit Growth Still Accelerating Chart I-5U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS We expect that most of the repatriated funds will again flow through to shareholders, rather than be used to pay down debt or spent on capital goods. Cash has not been a constraint to capital spending in recent years outside of perhaps the small business sector, which has much less to gain from the tax holiday. A revival in animal spirits and capital spending is underway, but this has more to do with the overall tax package and global growth than the ability of U.S. companies to repatriate overseas earnings. Estimates of how much the repatriation could boost EPS vary widely. Most of it will occur in the Tech and Health Care sectors. Buybacks appear to have lifted EPS growth by roughly one percentage point over the past year. We would not be surprised to see this accelerate by 1-2 percentage points, although the timing could be delayed by a year if the 2004 tax holiday provides the correct timeline. This is certainly positive for the equity market, but much of the impact could already be discounted in prices. Organic earnings growth, and the economic and policy outlook will be the main drivers of equity market returns over the next year. We expect some profit margin contraction later this year, but our 5% EPS growth forecast is beginning to look too conservative. This is especially the case because it does not include the corporate tax cuts. The amount by which the tax cuts will boost earnings on an after-tax basis is difficult to estimate, but we are using 5% as a conservative estimate. Adding 2% for buybacks and 2% for dividends, the S&P 500 could provide an attractive 14% total return this year (assuming no multiple expansion). Timing The Exit Chart I-6Timing The Exit (I) That said, we noted in last month's Report and in BCA's 2018 Outlook that this will be a transition year. We expect a recession in the U.S. sometime in 2019 as the Fed lifts rates into restrictive territory. Equities and other risk assets will sniff out the recession about six months in advance, which means that investors should be preparing to take profits sometime during the next 12 months. Last month we discussed some of the indicators we will watch to help us time the exit. The 2/10 Treasury yield curve has been a reliable recession indicator in the past. However, the lead time on the peak in stocks was quite extended at times (Chart I-6). A shift in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.4% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We expect the Fed to tighten four times in 2018. We are likely to take some money off the table if core inflation is rising, even if it is still below 2%, at the time that the TIPS breakeven reaches 2.4%. We will also be watching seven indicators that we have found to be useful in heralding market tops, which are summarized in our Scorecard Indicator (Chart I-7). At the moment, four out of the seven indicators are positive (Chart I-8): State of the Business Cycle: As early signals that the economy is softening, watch for the ISM new orders minus inventories indicator to slip below zero, or the 3-month growth rate of unemployment claims to rise above zero. Monetary and Financial Conditions: Using interest rates to judge the stance of monetary policy has been complicated by central banks' use of their balance sheet as a policy tool. Thus, it is better to use two of our proprietary indicators: the BCA Monetary Indicator (MI) and the Financial Conditions Indictor. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Similarly, equities tend to perform well when the FCI is above its 250-day moving average. The MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. However, the broader FCI remains well in 'bullish' territory. Price Momentum: We simply use the S&P 500 relative to its 200-day moving average to measure momentum. Currently, the index is well above that level, providing a bullish signal for the Scorecard. Sentiment: Our research shows that stock returns have tended to be highest following periods when sentiment is bearish but improving. In contrast, returns have tended to be lowest following periods when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. The Scorecard includes the BCA Speculation Indicator to capture sentiment, but virtually all measures of sentiment are very high. The next major move has to be down by definition. Thus, sentiment is assigned a negative value in the Scorecard. Value: As discussed above, value is poor based on the Shiller P/E and the BCA Composite Valuation indicator. Valuation may not help with timing, but we include it in our Scorecard because an overvalued signal means investors should err on the side of getting out early. Chart I-7Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Chart I-8Timing The Exit (II) We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Table I-1Exit Checklist To our Checklist we add the U.S. Leading Economic index, which has a good track record of calling recessions. However, we will use the LEI excluding the equity market, since we are using it as an indicator for the stock market. It is bullish at the moment. Our Global LEI is also flashing green. Table I-1 provides a summary checklist for trimming equity exposure. At the moment, 2 out of 9 indicators are bearish. Cross Asset Valuation Comparison Clients have asked our view on the appropriate order in which to scale out of risk assets. One way to approach the question is to compare valuation across asset classes. Presumably, the ones that are most overvalued are at greatest risk, and thus profits should be taken the earliest. It is difficult to compare valuation across asset classes. Should one use fitted values from models or simple deviations from moving averages? Over what time period? Since there is no widely accepted approach, we include multiple measures. More than one time period was used in some cases to capture regime changes. Table I-2 provides out 'best guestimate' for nine asset classes. The approaches range from sophisticated methods developed over many years (i.e. our equity valuation indicators), to regression analysis on the fundamentals (oil), to simple deviations from a time trend (real raw industrial commodity prices and gold). Table I-2Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes We averaged the valuation readings in cases where there are multiple estimates for a single asset class. The results are shown in Chart I-9. Chart I-9Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes U.S. equities stand out as the most expensive by far, at 1.8 standard deviations above fair value. Gold, raw industrials and EM equities are next at one standard deviation overvalued. EM sovereign bond spreads come next at 0.7, followed closely by U.S. Treasurys (real yield levels) and investment-grade corporate (IG) bonds (expressed as a spread). High-yield (HY) is only about 0.3 sigma expensive, based on default-adjusted spreads over the Treasury curve. That said, both IG and HY are quite expensive in absolute terms based on the fact that government bonds are expensive. Oil is sitting very close to fair value, despite the rapid price run up over the past couple of months. This makes oil exposure doubly attractive at the moment because the fundamentals point to higher prices at a time when the underlying asset is not expensive. Sequencing Around Past S&P 500 Peaks Historical analysis around equity market peaks provides an alternative approach to the sequencing question. Table I-3 presents the number of days that various asset classes peaked before or after the past major five tops in the S&P 500. A negative number indicates that the asset class peaked before U.S. equities, and a positive number means that it peaked after. Table I-3Asset Class Leads & Lags Vs. Peak In S&P 500 Unfortunately, there is no consistent pattern observed for EM equities, raw industrials, U.S. cyclical stocks, Tech stocks, or small-cap versus large-cap relative returns. Sometimes they peaked before the S&P 500, and sometime after. The EM sovereign bond excess return index peaked about 130 days in advance of the 1998 and 2007 U.S. equity market tops, although we only have three episodes to analyse due to data limitations. Oil is a mixed bag. A peak in the price of gold led the equity market in four out of five episodes, but the lead time is long and variable. The most consistent lead/lag relationship is given by the U.S. corporate bond market. Both investment- and speculative-grade excess returns relative to government bonds peaked in advance of U.S. stocks in four of the five episodes. High-yield excess returns provided the most lead time, peaking on average 154 days in advance. Excess returns to high-yield were a better signal than total returns. This leading relationship is one reason why we plan to trim exposure to corporate bonds within our bond portfolio in advance of scaling back on equities. But the 'return of vol' that we expect to occur later this year will take a toll on carry trades more generally. We are already underweight EM equities and bonds. This EM recommendation has not gone in our favor, but it would make little sense to upgrade them now given our positive views on volatility and the dollar. An unwinding of carry trades will also hit the high-yielding currencies outside of the EM space, such as the Kiwi and Aussie dollar. Base metal prices will be hit particularly hard if the 2019 U.S. recession spills over to the EM economies as we expect. We may downgrade base metals from neutral to underweight around the time that we downgrade equities, but much depends on the evolution of the Chinese economy in the coming months. Oil is a different story. OPEC 2.0 is likely to cut back on supply in the face of an economic downturn, helping to keep prices elevated. We therefore may not trim energy exposure this year. As for equity sectors, our recommended portfolio is still overweight cyclicals for now. Our synchronized global capex boom, rising bond yield, and firm oil price themes keep us overweight the Industrials, Energy and Financial sectors. Utilities and Homebuilders are underweight. Tech is part of the cyclical sector, but poor valuation keeps us underweight. That said, our sector specialists are already beginning a gradual shift away from cyclicals toward defensives for risk management purposes. This transition will continue in the coming months as we de-risk. We are also shifting small caps to neutral on earnings disappointments and elevated debt levels. The Dollar Pain Trade Market shifts since our last publication have largely gone in our favor; stocks have surged, corporate bonds spreads have tightened, oil prices have spiked, bonds have sold off and cyclical stocks have outperformed defensives. One area that has gone against us is the U.S. dollar. Relative interest rate expectations have moved in favor of the dollar as we expected at both the short- and long-ends of the curve. Nonetheless, the dollar has not tracked its historical relationship versus both the yen and euro. The Greenback did not even get a short-term boost from the passage of the tax plan and holiday on overseas earnings. Perhaps this is because the lion's share of "overseas" earnings are already held in U.S. dollars. Reportedly, a large fraction is even held in U.S. banks on U.S. territory. Currency conversion is thus not a major bullish factor for the U.S. dollar. The recent bout of dollar weakness began around the time of the release of the ECB Minutes in January which were interpreted as hawkish because they appeared to be preparing markets for changes in monetary policy. The European debt crisis and economic recession were the reasons for the ECB's asset purchases and negative interest rate policy. Neither of these conditions are in place now. The ECB is meeting as we go to press, and we expect some small adjustments in the Statement that remove references to the need for "crisis" level accommodations. Subsequent steps will be to prepare markets for a complete end to QE, perhaps in September, and then for rates hikes likely in 2019. The key point is that European monetary policy has moved beyond 'peak stimulus' and the normalization process will continue. Perhaps this is partly to blame for euro strength although, as mentioned above, interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar. Does this mean that the dollar has peaked and has entered a cyclical bear phase that will persist over the next 6-12 months? The answer is 'no', although we are less bullish than in the past. We believe there is still a window for the dollar to appreciate against the euro and in broader trade-weighted terms by about 5%. First, a lot of euro-bullish news has been discounted (Chart I-10). Positive economic surprises heavily outstripped that in the U.S. last year, but that phase is now over. The euro appears expensive based on interest rate differentials, and euro sentiment is close to a bullish extreme. This all suggests that market positioning has become a negative factor for the currency. Chart I-10Euro: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted Second, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers, including Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Policymakers' concerns may partly reflect the fact that peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 0.6% from a high of 1.3% in April last year (Chart I-10, fourth panel). Third, U.S. consumer price and wage inflation have yet to pick up meaningfully. The dollar should receive a lift if core U.S. inflation clearly moves toward the Fed's 2% target, as we expect. The FOMC would suddenly appear to have fallen behind the curve and U.S. rate expectations would ratchet higher. Chart I-10, bottom panel, highlights that the euro will weaken if U.S. core inflation rises versus that in the Eurozone. The implication is that the Euro's appreciation has progressed too far and is due for a pullback. As for the yen, the currency surged in January when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced a reduction in long-dated JGB purchases. This simply acknowledged what has already occurred. It was always going to be impossible to target both the quantity of bond purchases and the level of 10-year yield simultaneously. Keeping yields near the target required less purchases than they thought. The market interpreted the BoJ's move as a possible prelude to lifting the 10-year yield target. It is perhaps not surprising that the market took the news this way. The economy is performing extremely well; our model that incorporates high-frequency economic data suggests that real GDP growth will move above 3% in the coming quarters. The Japanese economy is benefiting from the end of a fiscal drag and from a rebound in EM growth. Nonetheless, following January's BoJ policy meeting, Kuroda poured cold water on speculation that the BoJ may soon end or adjust the YCC. Recent speeches by BoJ officials reinforce the view that the MPC wants to see an overshoot of actual inflation that will lower real interest rates and thereby reinforce the strong economic activity that is driving higher inflation. Only then will officials be convinced that their job is done. Given that inflation excluding food and energy only stands at 0.3%, the BoJ is still a long way from the overshoot it desires. On the positive side, Japan's large current account surplus and yen undervaluation provide underlying support for the currency. Balancing the offsetting positive and negative forces, our foreign exchange strategists have shifted to neutral on the yen. The Euro remains underweight while the dollar is overweight. Similar to our dollar view, we still see a window for U.S. Treasurys to underperform the global hedged fixed-income benchmark as world bond yields shift higher this year. European government bonds will also sell off, but should outperform Treasurys. JGBs will provide the best refuge for bondholders during the global bond bear phase, since the BoJ will prevent a rise in yields inside of the 10-year maturity. Our global bond strategists upgraded U.K. gilts to overweight in January. Momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. FOMC Transition Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. An abrupt shift in policy is unlikely. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of nominal GDP or price level targeting as a policy framework, but this has been an ongoing debate that will likely continue for years to come. The Fed will remain committed to its current monetary policy framework once Powell takes over. Table I-4 provides a summary of who will be on the FOMC next year, including their policy bias. Chart I-11 compares the recent FOMC makeup with the coming Powell FOMC (voting members only). The hawk/dove ratio will not change much under Powell, unless Trump stacks the vacant spots with hawks. Table I-4Composition Of The FOMC Chart I-11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 In any event, history shows that the FOMC strives to avoid major shifts in policy around changeovers in the Fed Chair. In previous transitions, the previous path for rates was maintained by an average of 13 months. Moreover, Powell has shown that he is not one to rock the boat during his time on the FOMC. It will be the evolution of the economy and inflation, not the composition of the FOMC, that will have the biggest impact on markets at the end of the day. Recent speeches reveal that policymakers across the hawk/dove spectrum are moving modesty toward the hawkish side because growth has accelerated at a time when unemployment is already considered to be below full-employment by many policymakers. The melt-up in equity indexes in January did little to calm worries about financial excesses either. The Fed is struggling to understand the strength of the structural factors that could be holding down inflation. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 21, focusses on the impact of robot automation. While advances on this front are impressive, we conclude that it is difficult to find evidence that robots are more deflationary than previous technological breakthroughs. Thus, increased robot usage should not prevent inflation from rising as the labor market continues to tighten. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking at least as fast as the dots currently forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The unemployment rate is more likely to reach a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. As highlighted in last month's Report, a key risk to the bull market in risk assets is the end of the 'low vol/low rate' world. The selloff in the bond market in January may mark the start of this process. Conclusions We covered a lot of ground in this month's Overview of the markets, so we will keep the conclusions brief and focused on the risks. Our key point is that the fundamentals remain positive for risk assets, but that a lot of good news is discounted and it appears that we have entered a classic blow-off phase. This will be a transition year to a recession in the U.S. in 2019. Given that valuation for most risk assets is quite stretched, and given that the monetary taps are starting to close, investors must plan for the exit and keep an eye on our timing checklist. The main risk to our pro-cyclical portfolio is a rise in U.S. inflation and the Fed's response, which we believe will end the sweet spot for risk assets. Apart from this, our geopolitical strategists point to several other items that could upset the applecart this year:3 1. Trade China has cooperated with the U.S. in trying to tame North Korea. Nonetheless, President Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and he may need to show some muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections in November in order to rally his base. It is politically embarrassing to the Administration that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in Trump's first year in office. A key question is whether the President goes after China via a series of administrative rulings - such as the recently announced tariffs on solar panels and white goods - or whether he applies an across-the-board tariff and/or fine. The latter would have larger negative macroeconomic implications. 2. Iran On January 12, President Trump threatened not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12), unless some new demands are met. Pressure from the U.S. President comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters. The domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. For the time being, however, we expect only a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish House View on oil prices. 3. China Last month's Special Report highlighted that significant structural reforms are on the way in China, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. The reforms should be growth-positive in the long term, but could be a net negative for growth in the near term depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. The risk is that the authorities make a policy mistake by staying too tight, as occurred in 2015. We are monitoring a number of indicators that should warn if a policy mistake is unfolding. On this front, January brought some worrying economic data. The latest figures for both nominal imports and money growth slowed. Given that M2 and M3 are components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. First, China's trade numbers are highly volatile; nominal import growth remains elevated after smoothing the data. Second, China's export growth remains buoyant, consistent with a solid December PMI reading. The bottom line is that we are sticking with our view that China will experience a benign deceleration in terms of its impact on DM risk assets, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 25, 2018 Next Report: February 22, 2018 1 According to Thomson Reuters/IBES. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 For more information, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Also see "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018. II. The Impact Of Robots On Inflation Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27. III. Indicators And Reference Charts As we highlight in the Overview section, the earnings backdrop for the U.S. equity market remains very upbeat, as highlighted by the rise in the net earnings revisions and net earnings surprises indexes. Bottom-up analysts will likely continue to boost after-tax earnings estimates for the year as they adjust to the U.S. tax cut news. Our main concern is that a lot of good news is now discounted. Our Technical Indicator remains bullish, but our composite valuation indicator surpassed one sigma in January, which is our threshold of overvaluation. From these levels of overvaluation, the medium-term outlook for equity total returns is negligible. Our speculation index is at all-time highs and implied volatility is low, underscoring that investors are extremely bullish. From a contrary perspective, this is a warning sign for the equity market. Our Monetary Indicator has also moved further into 'bearish' territory for equities, although overall financial conditions remain positive for growth. It is also disconcerting that our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) shifted to a 'sell' signal for stocks, following five straight months on a 'buy' signal. This occurred because investors may be buying based on speculation rather than on a firm belief in the staying power of the underlying fundamentals. For now, though, our Willingness-to-Pay indicator for the U.S. rose sharply in January, highlighting that investor equity inflows are very strong and are favoring U.S. equities relative to Japan and the Eurozone. This is perhaps not surprising given the U.S. tax cuts just passed by Congress. The RPI indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our U.S. bond technical indicator shows that Treasurys are close to oversold territory, suggesting that we may be in store for a consolidation period following January's surge in yields. Treasurys are slightly cheap on our valuation metric, although not by enough to justify closing short duration positions. The U.S. dollar is oversold and due for a bounce. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights A thorough audit of our trade book highlights that our country and sector allocation recommendations have been quite profitable for investors. Of the 12 active trades in our book, 11 have generated a positive return, including one with a 32% annualized rate of return. A review of the original basis and subsequent performance of our trades suggests that investors should close 6 out of 12 of our active positions, predominantly related to resource & construction and domestic stock market themes. We will be looking for opportunities to add new trades to our book over the coming weeks and months that have broad, "big-picture" relevance. Watch this space. Feature In this week's report we conduct a thorough audit of our trade book, by revisiting the original basis and subsequent performance of all 12 of our active trades. While these trades have been initiated at different points over the past five years, they can be broadly grouped into five different themes: Core Equity Allocation & General Pro-Risk Trades (4 Trades) Reform-Oriented Trades (2 Trades) Resource & Construction Plays (2 Trades) Domestic Stock Market Trades (2 Trades) Trades Linked To Hong Kong (2 Trades) Overall, our trade book performance has been excellent. Of the 12 active trades in our book, 11 have generated a positive return, including one with a 32% annualized rate of return (since December 2015). As a result of our trade book review, we recommend that investors close six trades and maintain six over the coming 6-12 months. The closed trades predominantly fall into the resource & construction and domestic stock market categories, although we also recommend closing our long China H-share / short industrial commodity trade as well as our long Hong Kong REITs / short Hong Kong broad market trade. We present our rationale for retaining or closing each trade below. Over the coming weeks and months we will be looking for opportunities to add new trades to our book. Stay tuned. Core Equity Allocation & General Pro-Risk Trades We have four open core equity allocation and pro-risk trades: Overweight MSCI China Investable stocks versus the emerging markets benchmark, initiated on May 2, 2012 Long China H-shares / short industrial commodities, initiated on March 16, 2016 Short MSCI Taiwan / Long MSCI China Investable, initiated on February 2, 2017 and Long China onshore corporate bonds, initiated on June 22, 2017 We recommend that investors stick with three of these trades, but close the long China H-shares / short industrial commodities position for the following reasons: Chart 1Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Overweight MSCI China Investable Stocks Versus The EM Benchmark (Maintain) This trade represents one of the most important equity allocation calls for Chinese stocks, and is one of the ways that BCA expresses a view on the Chinese economy in our House View Matrix.1 While it hasn't always been the case, we noted in a recent Special Report that Chinese stocks have become a high-beta equity market versus both the global aggregate and the emerging market benchmark, even when excluding the technology sector.2 China's high-beta nature, the fact that EM equities remain in an uptrend (Chart 1), and our view that China's ongoing slowdown is likely to be benign and controlled all suggest that investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks vs their emerging market peers. Long China H-Shares / Short Industrial Commodities (Close) We initiated this trade in March 2016, one month after Chinese stock prices bottomed following the significant economic slowdown in 2015. At that time it was not clear to global investors that a mini-cycle upswing in the Chinese economy had begun, and this pair trade was a way of taking a limited pro-risk bet. Given our view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown in China, this hedged trade is no longer needed, especially given the uncertain impact of ongoing supply side constraints in China on global commodity prices. As such, we recommend that investors close the trade, locking in an annualized return of 15.7%. Short MSCI Taiwan / Long MSCI China Investable (Maintain) Chart 2If The TWD Declines Materially, ##br##Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) We initiated our short MSCI Taiwan / long MSCI China investable trade last February, when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). We reviewed the basis of this trade in a report last month,3 and recommended that investors stick with the call despite significantly oversold conditions (Chart 2). A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. Long China Onshore Corporate Bonds (Maintain) Chinese corporate bond yields have risen materially since late-2016, largely in response to expectations of tighter monetary policy. These expectations have been validated, with 3-month interbank rates having risen over 200bps since late-2016. We argued last summer that the phase of maximum liquidity tightening was likely over, and that quality spreads and government bond yields would probably drop over the coming three to six months. While this clearly did not occur (yields and spreads rose), the total return from this trade has remained in the black owing to the significant yield advantage of these bonds versus similarly-rated bonds in the developed world. Chart 3 highlights that Chinese 5-year corporate bond spreads are also considerably less correlated with equity prices than their investment-grade peers in the U.S. This underscores that the rise in yields and spreads over the past year has reflected expectations of tighter monetary policy, not rising default risk. Our sense is that barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum, significant further monetary policy tightening is improbable, meaning that corporate bond yields are not likely to rise much further. As a final point, as of today's report we are changing the benchmark for this trade from a BCA calculation based on a basket of 5-year AAA and AA-rated corporate bonds to the ChinaBond Corporate Credit Bond Total Return Index. Chart 3Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk ##br##Barometer Like In The U.S. Reform-Oriented Trades We have two open trades related to China's rebooted reform initiative, both of which were initiated on November 16, 2017: Long China investable consumer staples / short consumer discretionary stocks and Long China investable environmental and social governance (ESG) leaders / short investable broad market These trades were recently opened, and we continue to recommend that investors maintain both positions: Long China Investable Consumer Staples / Short Consumer Discretionary Stocks (Maintain) The basis for the first trade stems from the current limitations of China's investable consumer discretionary index as a clear-cut play on retail-oriented consumer spending. We argued in our November 16 Weekly Report that Chinese investable consumer staples would be a better play on Chinese consumer spending owing to the material weight of the automobiles & components industry group in the discretionary sector, which may fare poorly over the coming year due to the environmental mandate of President Xi's proposed reforms. We argued in the report that this trade would likely be driven by alpha rather than beta, and indeed Chart 4 illustrates that staples continue to rise relative to discretionary against a backdrop of a rising broad market. Long China Investable ESG leaders / Short Investable Broad Market (Maintain) In the same report we recommended that investors overweight the China investable ESG leaders index, based on the goal of favoring firms that are best positioned to deliver "sustainable" growth in an era of heightened environmental reforms. The index overweights firms with the highest MSCI ESG ratings in each sector (using a proprietary MSCI ranking scheme), and maintains similar sector weights as the investable benchmark, which limits the beta risk of the trade. Chart 5 highlights that the trade is progressing in line with our expectations, suggesting that investors stick with the position over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 4Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Chart 5Likely To Continue To Outperform Resource & Construction Plays We have two open trades related to the resource sector: Long China investable oil & gas stocks / short global oil & gas stocks, initiated on April 26, 2014 and Long China investable construction materials sector / short investable broad market, initiated on December 9, 2015 We recommend that investors close both of these positions, based on the following rationale: Chart 6Similar Earnings Profile, ##br##But Weaker Dividend Payouts Long China Investable Oil & Gas Stocks / Short Global Oil & Gas Stocks (Close) This trade was initiated based on the view that the valuation gap between Chinese and global oil & gas companies is unjustifiable given that the earnings off both sectors are globally driven. Indeed, Chart 6 shows that the trailing EPS profiles of both sectors in US$ terms have been broadly similar over the past few years, and yet China's oil & gas sector trades at a 40% price-to-book discount relative to its global peers. However, panel 2 of Chart 6 highlights that this discount may represent investor concerns about earnings quality and/or state-owned corporate governance. The chart shows that while the earnings ROE for Chinese oil & gas companies is higher than that of the global average, the dividend ROE (dividends per share as a percent of shareholders equity) is considerably lower. While China's oil & gas dividend ROE has recently been rising, the gap remains wide relative to global oil & gas companies, suggesting that there is no significant re-rating catalyst that is likely to emerge over the coming 6-12 months. Close for an annualized return of 1.4%. Long China Investable Construction Material Stocks / Short China Investable Broad Market (Close) The relative performance of Chinese investable construction material stocks has been positive over the past two years, with the trade having generated an 8.1% annualized return since initiation. There are two factors contributing to our view that it is time for investors to book profits on this trade. The first is that China's investable construction materials are dominated by cement companies, which may suffer in relative terms from China's rebooted reform initiative this year.4 The second is that the relative performance of construction materials stocks is closely correlated with, and led by, the growth in total real estate investment (Chart 7). Residential investment makes up a significant component of total real estate investment, and Chart 8 highlights that a significant gap between floor space sold and completed has narrowed the inventory to sales ratio over the past three years. But the ratio remains somewhat elevated relative to its history which, when coupled with the ongoing growth slowdown in China and the deceleration in total real estate investment growth, implies a poor risk/reward ratio over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 7Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Chart 8No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent Domestic Stock Market Trades We have two open trades related to China's domestic stock market: Long China domestic utility sector / short domestic broad market, initiated on January 22, 2014 and Long China domestic food & beverage sector / short domestic broad market, initiated on December 9, 2015 Similar to our resource & construction plays, we recommend that investors close both of our recommended domestic stock market trades: Long China Domestic Utility Sector / Short Domestic Broad Market (Close) We initiated this trade in early-2014, following a comprehensive reform plan released in late-2013 by the Chinese government. The plan called for allowing market forces to play a decisive role in allocating resources, which we argued would grant utilities more pricing power, reduce their earnings volatility associated with policy risks, and lead to a structural positive re-rating. Chart 9 illustrates that this trade gained significant ground in 2014 and early-2015, even prior to the significant melt-up in domestic stock prices that began in Q2 2015. However, the trade has underperformed significantly since the middle of last year, which has been driven by a sharp deterioration in ROE. This decline in ROE appears to have been cost-driven, as coal is an important feedstock for Chinese utility companies and has risen substantially in price over the past two years. While domestic utilities are now significantly oversold in relative terms, we recommend that investors close this trade because the original reform-oriented basis has shifted significantly. The priorities that emanated from October's Party Congress were decidedly environmental in nature, meaning that coal prices may very well remain elevated over the coming 6-12 months (due to restricted supply). This means that a recovery in ROE would rest on the need to raise utility prices, which is a low-visibility event that will be difficult to predict. Close for an annualized return of 3%. Long China Domestic Food & Beverage Sector / Short Domestic Broad Market (Close) We initiated this trade in December 2015, based on this sector's superior corporate fundamentals and undemanding valuation levels. We argued that the anti-corruption campaign since late-2012 was likely the cause of prior underperformance, given that the group is dominated by a few high-end alcohol producers. The market overacted to the high-profile crackdown, and ultimately the fundamentals of the sector did not deteriorate materially. Our view has panned out spectacularly, with the trade having earned a 32% annualized return since inception5 (Chart 10 panel 1). While the group's ROE remains significantly above that of the domestic benchmark, valuation measures suggest that investors have more than priced this in (Chart 10 panel 2). The trade has mostly played out and we would not like to overstay our welcome. In addition, panel 3 illustrates that technical conditions are extremely overbought, suggesting that investors are being presented with an excellent opportunity to exit the position. Chart 9Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Chart 10Time To Book Profits Trades Linked To Hong Kong We have two open trades related to Hong Kong: Long U.S. / short Hong Kong 10-Year government bonds, initiated on January 15, 2014 and Short Hong Kong property investors / long Hong Kong broad market, initiated on January 21, 2015 We recommend that investors stick with the first and close the second, based on the following perspectives: Long U.S. / Short Hong Kong 10-Year Government Bonds (Maintain) Hong Kong has an open capital account and an exchange rate pegged to the U.S. dollar, meaning that its monetary policy is directly tied to that of the U.S. Yet, Hong Kong's 10-year government bond yield is non-trivially below that of the U.S., which argues for a short stance versus similar maturity U.S. Treasurys. While it is true that the Hong Kong - U.S. 10-year yield spread does vary and can widen over a 6-12 month horizon, Chart 11 highlights that the relative total return profile of the trade (in unhedged terms) trends higher over time due to the carry advantage. Short Hong Kong REITs / Long Hong Kong Broad Market (Close) There are cross-currents facing the outlook for Hong Kong REITs vs the broad market, arguing for a neutral rather than an underweight stance. Close this trade for an annualized return of 3.6%. While the relative performance of global REITs is typically negatively correlated with bond yields, Chart 12 shows that the relationship with Hong Kong property yields has been positive and lagging (i.e. falling yields lead declining relative performance, and vice versa). Under this regime, a rise in U.S. government bond yields, as we expect, would suggest an improvement in the relative performance of Hong Kong REITs. Chart 11A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade Chart 12Rising Bond Yields Implies ##br##Positive HK REIT Performance Chart 13 highlights that periods of positive yield / REIT performance correlation have tended to occur when Hong Kong property prices are rising significantly relative to income, as they have been for the past several years. One interpretation of this dynamic is that when house prices are overvalued and potentially vulnerable, REIT investors react positively to an improvement in economic fundamentals (which tends to push yields up due to higher interest rate expectations). The risk of an eventual collapse of Hong Kong property prices is clear, but we cannot identify an obvious catalyst for this to occur over the coming 6-12 months. Importantly, the fact that property prices have continued to rise during a period of tighter mainland capital controls suggests that only a significant economic shock will be enough to derail the uptrend in prices, circumstances that we do not expect over the coming year. Finally, Chart 14 highlights that Hong Kong REITs are deeply discounted relative to book value when compared against the broad market. This suggests that at least some of the risks associated with the property market have already been priced in by investors. Chart 13Yields & REITs Positively Correlated ##br##When House Prices Are Overvalued Chart 14Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/trades 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market", dated January 11, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst", dated December 14, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress", dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please note that the total return from this trade had been erroneously reported for some time due a data processing error on BCA's part. The return since inception now properly sources the China CSI SWS Food & Beverage index from CHOICE. We sincerely regret the error and any confusion it may have caused. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights One of the biggest mistakes in finance is to equate risk with volatility. The correct measure of risk is the negative skew in payoff distributions. If 10-year bond yields should rise another 40 bps, equities would become riskier than bonds and elevated equity valuations would become much harder to sustain. This would be the point at which to scale back equity exposure. The corollary for bonds is that 10-year yields cannot sustainably rise more than 40bps before experiencing a tradeable reversal. Feature It is the crucial question that all investors should ask at all times. What is the relative risk of the two major asset classes - bonds and equities - and are their relative return prospects commensurate with the relative risk? Chart of the WeekBelow A 2% Yield, 10-Year Bonds Are Riskier Than Equities But first, there is an even more fundamental question: what do we mean by risk? Conventional wisdom says that the risk of an investment is captured by its volatility. Indeed, through instruments such as the VIX futures and currency volatility options, volatility has become a multi-trillion dollar asset-class in its own right. Therefore, volatility must measure the risk of an investment, right? Wrong. The Biggest Mistake In Finance As a measure of risk, volatility is clearly wrong. Volatility regards price gains in exactly the same way as it regards price losses. But investors don't mind gains, they only mind losses! Consider an investment whose price moves alternately sideways and sharply higher. The maths would say that the returns have high volatility, implying that the investment is very risky. In truth though, the investment is highly desirable and 'risk-free' - because its price never declines. At our recent New York conference, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman warned that one of the biggest mistakes in finance is to equate risk with volatility. After decades of empirical and theoretical studies - which culminated in the 2002 Nobel Prize for Economics - Kahneman proved that investors are not concerned about the symmetrical fluctuations in investment returns. Instead, they are concerned about the asymmetry - or skew - in payoff distributions. Kahneman explained the underlying psychology. "People are limited in their ability to comprehend and evaluate extreme probabilities, so highly unlikely events are overweighted." If the payoff distribution is symmetric, the overweighting of unlikely events in the loss tail and the gain tail exactly cancels out. But if the distribution is asymmetric, the longer tail determines the perceived attractiveness of the payoff. Where the longer tail is on the gain side, the distribution is said to have positive skew (Figure I-1). The classic example is a lottery. When people play the lottery, their loss is limited to the ticket price, but their gain could be tens of millions. People perceive the positive skew as attractive because they overweight the minuscule probability of becoming a millionaire. As a result, they overpay for the lottery ticket versus its expected value. Where the longer tail is on the loss side, the distribution is said to have negative skew (Figure I-2). This is like a lottery in reverse. The gain size is relatively limited, but the loss could be very large. People perceive the negative skew as unattractive because they overweight the probability of a large loss. As a result, they demand overpayment to take it on. Figure I-1People Like Positive Skew Figure I-2People Dislike Negative Skew For investments with negative skew, this overpayment takes the form of an excess return demanded from the market - a 'risk premium' - versus investments with less negative skew. Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities? We are now in a position to tackle the question in the title. To determine whether bonds are riskier than equities or vice-versa, we must compare the skews of their return profiles.1 The important point is that for a bond, the skew of its return profile changes with its yield. At yields above 2.5%, 10-year bond returns show no skew. Worst losses broadly equal best gains. However, when yields drop below 2%, returns start to exhibit negative skew (Chart I-2). And at yields below 1%, the negative skew becomes extreme. Chart I-2Bond Risk Increases At ##br##Low Bond Yields Chart I-3Equity Risk Does Not Increase At##br## Low Bond Yields The reason is obvious. Central banks accept that there is a 'lower bound' for policy interest rates - perhaps slightly negative - below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. The limit also marks the lower bound for bond yields. Close to this lower bound for yields, bond mathematics necessarily creates a negatively skewed return profile. Simply put, prices have little upside, but they have a lot of downside! Chart I-4A 40Bps Rise In Yields Would Make Global ##br##Bonds Riskier Than Equities Turning to equities, the empirical evidence shows that equity returns always exhibit negative skew. Worst losses are typically around 1.5 times the size of best gains (Chart I-3). But the negative skew of equity returns is largely independent of the bond yield. The upshot is that there is a crossover bond yield below which the negative skew on 10-year bonds exceeds that on equities. This crossover bond yield is around 2%. In negative skew terms, we can say that at a 10-year bond yield below 2%, 10-year bonds are riskier than equities. And at a yield above 2%, equities are riskier than 10-year bonds (Chart of the Week). So in negative skew terms, 10-year bonds are riskier investments than equities in Europe and in Japan. But equities are riskier investments than 10-year bonds in the United States. Still, given that developed financial markets tend to move en masse, the relationship that is most significant is the aggregate one. At a global level, 10-year bond yields are 40bps below the crossover yield at which equities become riskier than bonds (Chart I-4). QE Distorted The Relative Valuation Of Equities Versus Bonds Which segues us neatly to today's ECB monetary policy meeting. Many people, worried about the end of QE, point out that the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four'2 central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. However, in the context of a global fixed income market of $220 trillion,3 $10 trillion of buying is small change. For the $220 trillion global bond and bank loan complex, the much more significant driver of yields has been the expected path of policy interest rates. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet put it, serial QE has been nothing more than "a signalling channel which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on (ultra-low) policy rates." Chart I-5A Promise To Keep The Policy Rate Ultra-Low ##br##Pulls Down Bond Yields Central bankers know that QE depressed bond yields by signalling an extended period of ultra-low interest rates (Chart I-5). They also know that if the prospective return on bonds drops, so must the prospective return on competing investments such as equities. Thereby, the absolute valuations of bonds and equities both rise. However, one largely overlooked impact of QE - even by central bankers - has been the effect on the relative valuation of equities versus bonds. To repeat, when 10-year bond yields drop below 2%, their return distribution becomes more negatively skewed than that for equities. But if bonds become riskier investments, the 'risk premium' (excess return) on equities must disappear. Meaning equity valuations and prices get a second boost, compressing the prospective 10-year equity return to become 'bond-like'. Is this the case? Unlike for 10-year bonds, we do not know the 10-year prospective return from equities with certainty. However, we can get a good estimate from today's starting valuation. But which valuation metric to use? We are cautious of using profit based metrics as these will be flattered by the advanced position in the business cycle as well as the structural uptrend in profit margins. Instead, at an aggregate level, world equity market capitalisation to world GDP has been an excellent predictor of the prospective 10-year return on world equities. Today, this valuation metric is at the same level as in 2000 and 2007, and implies a prospective return of less than 2% a year (Chart I-6). Chart I-6World Equity Market Cap To GDP Implies A Feeble Prospective 10-Year Return Nevertheless, while the global 10-year bond yield stays below 2%, this is a sustainable valuation for equities. Effectively, equities and bonds are offering broadly similar negative skews, and therefore should offer broadly similar prospective returns. However, if 10-year bond yields should rise another 40 bps, equities would become riskier than bonds and elevated equity valuations would become much harder to sustain. Though not there yet, this would be the point when we would scale back equity exposure. The corollary for bonds is that 10-year yields cannot sustainably rise more than 40bps before experiencing a tradeable reversal. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 One simple way to quantify this skew is to find an extended period of time in which the price ended where it started, and then to calculate the period's worst 3-month loss as a multiple of the best 3-month gain. We define skew = -ln(worst 3-month loss / best 3-month gain) using log returns for 3-month loss and 3-month gain. 2 The Federal Reserve, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England. 3 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to position for an underperformance of the Japanese energy sector (led by JXTG Holdings And Inpex) versus the overall Japanese market. This is a longer trade than normal with a maximum duration of 26 weeks. Set a profit-target at 8% with a symmetrical stop-loss. 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-7 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 II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

As noted in the previous Insight, relative margin declines for small caps seem more likely than gains. Meanwhile, small cap balance sheets have never been less prepared for such a downturn than they are right now. The relative net debt-to-EBITDA ratio has gone parabolic and is making all-time highs (middle panel). Rising small cap indebtedness, at a time when cash flow growth is anemic, suggests that the S&P 600 is increasingly vulnerable. Not only are interest payments eating into income, but also refinancing risk is a threat in an era of rising interest rates. The recently passed tax reform legislation caps interest expense tax deductibility at 30% of EBITDA this year. Nearly 30% of Russell 2000 constituents had an interest expense greater than 30% of EBITDA, compared with 3% of the S&P 500. The upshot is that stretched small cap balance sheets are delivering an additional P&L headwind that large cap peers don't face. Bottom Line: Factors are starting to line up for small cap underperformance in 2018. We are adding a downgrade alert to small caps vs. large caps. Please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details.

Small businesses have been in an ebullient mood since the Trump administration took power as key concerns, including reducing regulation and lowering corporate taxes have been aggressively addressed. However, recent readings from the Atlanta wage growth tracker and a survey of small business planned wage increases have suddenly diverged (second panel). The implication seems to be that small businesses are struggling to retain talent to a degree the greater economy is not experiencing. This looks to be borne out by the relative operating margins of the S&P 500 and 600 where the former is nearing cyclical highs and the latter remains distantly below the levels of only 5 years ago (third panel). At the same time, small caps continue to trade at a premium valuation to their large cap peers (bottom panel). We think this understates the true valuation gap as nearly 15% of S&P 600 component firms have negative or no forward EPS estimates. Bottom Line: Small caps seem overvalued relative to large cap earnings growth potential. Please see the next Insight for more details.

Special Report

Highlights EM stocks are about one standard deviation above their fair value, according to several valuation indicators. Provided EM equities are neither extremely overvalued nor undervalued, the key to their performance over the next 12 months will be corporate profits. Having missed this rally, we are reluctant to chase it at current levels amid the prevailing investor euphoria and overbought conditions. Compared with DM equities, EMs are not cheap - relative valuations are neutral. Meanwhile, the corporate profit outlook is better in DM than EM. As a result, we are reiterating our underweight stance on EM stocks versus DM bourses. Feature This week we delve into overall emerging markets (EM) stock valuations. Next month we will publish another report outlining a valuation ranking among individual EM bourses and equity sectors. After the significant share price run up, the question for investors is whether EM equities are still cheap or have become overvalued. Our composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean multiples suggests that EM equity valuations are one standard deviation above their fair value (Chart I-1). The message is the same when using the medians of various multiples for 50 sub-sectors (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Equity Valuations: ##br##Trimmed-Mean Multiples Chart I-2EM Equity Valuations: ##br##Medians Of Multiples These two composite valuation indicators are the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of sub-sectors - i.e., it removes outliers and then calculates an equal-weighted average. Finally, the composite valuation indicator using equal-weights (not market-cap weights) for all 11 sectors also corroborates that the overall EM universe is somewhat overvalued (Chart I-3). Interestingly, based on Chart I-1 and I-2, EM stocks did not become cheap at their 2016 bottom - they were only fairly valued in early 2016. The individual components of the composite median valuation indicator - based on medians of 50 EM sub-sectors - are presented in Chart I-4. The top three panels reveal that the trailing P/E, forward P/E and price-to-cash earnings ratios are all well above their historical mean, and close to their previous peaks. The components that keep the composite indicator from being extremely overvalued are the PBV and price-to-dividend ratios. These two variables are close to their historical means (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). Chart I-3EM Equity Valuation: ##br##Equal-Weighted Sector Multiples Chart I-4Components of Median ##br##Valuation Composite As to qualitative assessment of EM valuations, our sense is that EM equity segments that have good fundamentals are currently overvalued, while those that feature low multiples are "cheap" for a reason. Bottom Line: According to valuation indicators based on various multiples, EM stocks are moderately overvalued. Relative Valuations To DM Relative to DM, EM equity valuations are neutral. Both relative composite valuation indicators computed using 20% trimmed-mean and the median are at the middle of their historical range (Chart I-5). This signifies there is presently no valuation gap between EM and DM stocks. All these measures are determined using the MSCI indexes, and utilize comparable data for both DM and EM across all companies, industry groups and sectors. Using equal weighted-sector multiples, the EM versus DM relative composite valuation indicator also upholds that relative equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-6). This measure uses equal weights for all sectors in both the EM and DM stock indexes. Hence, this composite removes sector weight differences among various equity indexes. EM equity valuations are also on par with the U.S. stock market, based on 20% trimmed-mean, median or equal sector-weighted multiples (Chart I-7). Chart I-5EM Versus DM: Relative Trimmed-Mean##br## And Median Multiples Chart I-6EM Versus DM: Relative Equal-Weighted ##br##Sector Multiples Chart I-7EM Versus U.S.: Trimmed-Mean, Median And ##br##Equal-Weighted Sector Multiples The takeaway from these relative valuation composites is that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive compared with U.S. or other DM equities. This is contrary to the widely held view among many investors and commentators that EM stocks are cheap versus DM in general, and the U.S. in particular. Additionally, in absolute terms, EM, DM and U.S. equities are all - about one standard deviation - expensive, according to these valuation yardsticks. Bottom Line: After removing outlier sub-sectors with the lowest and highest multiples and using equal weights for all sectors in the equity benchmarks, EM valuations appear comparable to those in the DM universe and the U.S. The CAPE Ratio: A Structural Valuation Perspective Our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for the EM equity universe currently stands at its fair value (Chart I-8). Due to the lack of historical data for EM, we were unable to use Robert Shiller's methodology for constructing the CAPE ratio for developing markets. The Shiller method uses a 10-year moving average of EPS to calculate the cyclically adjusted EPS. However, in the case of EM aggregate EPS, data go back only to 1986. If we were to calculate a 10-year moving average, we would lose 10 years of data, and the valuation indicator would only start in 1994. This is too short a time frame for a structural valuation indicator. Instead, we used the following methodology to construct the CAPE ratio: We deflated EM EPS and EM equity prices (both in U.S. dollar terms) by U.S. consumer price inflation (CPI) to get both EM EPS and EM share prices in real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. dollar terms. Then we regressed EM EPS in real U.S. dollar terms against a time trend. The resulting trend line represents the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Finally, we divided EM stock prices in real U.S. dollar terms by the EM EPS trend line. The outcome is the EM CAPE ratio (Chart I-8, top panel). To be sure that our methodology produced a reasonable outcome, we computed a CAPE ratio using our methodology for the U.S. stock market and compared it with the Shiller CAPE ratio. Chart I-9 demonstrates that our methodology generated a CAPE ratio quite similar to Shiller's CAPE ratio from 1935 to the present. Consequently, we are comfortable that the results generated by our methodology are robust and sensible. When we calculate the EM versus U.S. relative CAPE ratio, the outcome is that EM appears cheap versus the U.S. stock market (Chart I-10). The degree of relative undervaluation is meaningful: one standard deviation. Chart I-8EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value Chart I-9U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller Chart I-10Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. Our CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption of EPS converging to their trend line. The latter is the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms. The slope of the time trend - the historical annual compound growth rate of EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms - is 2.8% for EM and 2% for the U.S. Please note that we determined the earnings time trend using the historical range of 1983-present for EM and 1935-present for the U.S. Hence, these CAPE models assume that EM EPS will grow 0.8% (2.8% - 2%) percentage points faster than U.S. corporate EPS in the inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms, as they have done historically. Under this assumption, EM stocks are materially cheaper than the U.S. market. Finally, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works in the long term. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Bottom Line: According to our CAPE models, EM equities are fairly valued in absolute terms, but they are meaningfully cheaper than U.S. stocks. What About Interest Rates And Profits The above valuation measures did not incorporate one important variable: interest rates. The current high equity valuations in both DM and EM would in some way be justified if both global bond yields and EM local interest rates held at current low levels. Our bias is that U.S. bond yields will break out, dragging up other DM bond yields. DM government bond prices seem to be teetering on the edge of a technical breakdown (Chart I-11). The current robust growth in the U.S. and euro area justifies upward revisions to their interest rate expectations. In turn, higher U.S. bond yields will put a floor under the U.S. dollar. We anticipate that most of the potential U.S. dollar rally will occur versus EM and commodities currencies, and less so against the euro and other European currencies. Chart I-12 demonstrates that since January 2017, EM currencies have defied the rise in U.S. inflation-linked bond (TIPS) yields. We expect the negative correlation between EM currencies and U.S. TIPS yields - which existed from 2013 to 2017 - to re-establish itself. Chart I-11DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown Chart I-12EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields This will likely occur as the recently approved tax cuts buoy the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, in China, regulatory tightening on banking and shadow banking as well as liquidity tightening will weigh on mainland growth. A shift in relative China-U.S. growth dynamics in favor of the U.S. will likely lead to a setback in the value of EM exchange rates. In turn, EM currency depreciation will produce higher local bond yields in a number of high-yielding developing markets (Chart I-13). Overall, the odds favor rising DM bond yields in the coming months. This, along with a slowdown in China, will trigger a selloff in EM currencies. The latter will produce widening EM credit (sovereign and corporate) spreads and lead to higher EM domestic bond yields. Altogether, this warrants a de-rating of EM versus DM equity multiples. On corporate profits, visible growth deceleration in China heralds a notable relapse in commodities prices and EM EPS growth. Our EM EPS model - based on narrow money (M1) growth - continues to flash red on the EM corporate profit outlook (Chart I-14). Chart I-13EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields Chart I-14EM EPS Is At Risk Investment Conclusions Chart I-15Bottom-Up Analysts Are ##br##Record Bullish On EM EPS Equity valuations matter most when valuations are at an extreme - two standard deviations overvalued or undervalued. This is presently not the case for EM stocks. Provided EM equities are neither extremely overvalued nor undervalued, the key to their performance over the next 12 months will be corporate profits. We expect EM corporate growth to downshift due to a slowdown in China and a setback in commodities prices. EM is more leveraged to China than to the U.S. or Europe. Hence, robust growth in DM is not inconsistent with our negative view on EM currencies and stocks. In the meantime, EM share prices continue to exhibit strong momentum. It is difficult to time a reversal amid such intense capital inflows. Nevertheless, from a big-picture perspective, such a stampede and the ensuing melt-up in stock prices typically precedes a major top. Having missed this rally, we are reluctant to chase it at current levels amid the prevailing investor euphoria (Chart I-15) and overbought conditions. Compared with DM equities, EMs are not cheap - relative valuations are neutral. Hence, there is no valuation justification to favor EM versus DM. Meanwhile, the corporate profit outlook is better in DM than in EM. As a result, we are reiterating our underweight stance on EM versus DM stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Global Duration Strategy: Global bond yields continue to move higher, driven by rising inflation expectations and falling investor risk aversion. With global interest rates still not at levels that will restrict growth or draw capital away from booming equity markets, the path of least resistance for yields remains upward. Maintain a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, with a bearish curve steepening bias in the U.S. and core Europe. U.K. Gilts: The momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. Stay overweight Gilts. Feature Revisiting Our Duration Strategy After The Rise In Yields Global government bond markets have started 2018 in a grumpy mood. The price return on the overall Barclays Global Treasury index is already down -0.6% so far in January, and yields are up for almost every country and maturity bucket within the developed market universe. Only longer-dated Peripheral European debt (Italy, Spain, Portugal, even Greece) has seen lower yields month-to-date, as the powerful growth upturn in the Euro Area has resulted in sovereign credit upgrades and narrowing spreads to core European bonds. The global sell-off has been led by the U.S., with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield climbing all the way to 2.66% last week, already surpassing the 2016 high seen last March. Rising inflation expectations are the biggest culprit, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate climbing to 2.07%, the highest level since 2014. Chart of the WeekNo Good News For Bonds Right Now The relentless surge in global stock markets - driven by faster worldwide economic growth and an absence of volatility - is also helping fuel the bearishness in government bond markets. The economic growth momentum is showing no signs of abating. The IMF just raised its global growth forecast for both 2018 and 2019 to 3.9% in both years - the fastest pace since 2011 - largely because of the impact of the U.S. tax cuts but also because of much faster expected growth in Europe.1 The IMF noted that "the cyclical rebound could prove stronger in the near term as the pickup in activity and easier financial conditions reinforce each other." We could not agree more. With robust growth pushing a majority of economies to operate beyond full employment, and with financial conditions remaining highly accommodative, global bond markets are now pricing in both higher inflation expectations and less accommodative monetary policy (Chart of the Week). While we only expect actual rate increases in the U.S. and Canada in 2018, the pressures on global central banks to respond to the coordinated growth upturn with hawkish talk will keep government bond markets on the defensive - especially if global inflation rates are moving up at the same time. Diminishing demand for government bonds from recently reliable sources may also act to push up yields in the months ahead. A reduced pace of asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), combined with the Fed reducing the reinvestments of its maturing Treasury holdings, means that the private sector must now absorb a greater share of bond issuance, on the margin. In the U.S. in particular, the biggest swing factor for the Treasury market could end up being the retail investor. Households have been notably risk-averse in the years since the Great Financial Crisis, keeping relatively high allocations to fixed income and relatively low allocations to equities after suffering such steep losses in the 2008 crash. Those attitudes are changing, however, with the U.S. equity market continuing to hit new all-time highs amid increased media coverage of the rally (as well as the bullish Tweets from the White House taking credit for it). The latest University of Michigan U.S. consumer confidence survey showed that the expected probability of another year of rising stock prices is now at the highest level (66%) in the fifteen years that question was asked. U.S. investment advisors are also very optimistic, with the Investors' Intelligence bull/bear ratio back to the highest level since 1987! (Chart 2) Yet actual equity returns over the past three years have lagged those seen during periods of elevated investor sentiment, like in 1987, 2005 and 2014 (Chart 2). What is missing now is a big surge of retail investor money into equities that can fuel the next leg of the equity rally, particularly through mutual funds and ETFs. Chart 2The Bond-Bearish Equity Party##BR##Is Just Getting Started This is starting to happen. The rolling 12-month total of net flows into U.S. equity mutual funds and ETFs is about to accelerate into positive territory for the first time since 2012, according to data from the Investment Company Institute (3rd panel). This could soon pose a problem for U.S. bond markets as, since 2008, there has been a reliable negative correlation between U.S. retail flows into equity funds and flows into fixed income funds, especially at major turning points (bottom panel). For example, after that 2012 bottom in net equity flows, the rolling total of net flows into bond funds collapsed from over $400bn to zero in a span of 18 months, with the vast majority of the outflow from bonds going into equities. An exodus of U.S. retail investors from fixed income would be a major problem for bond markets, especially at a time when net Treasury issuance is expected to increase due to wider fiscal deficits and the Fed will be buying fewer bonds as it begins to unwind its massive balance sheet. Other buyers like commercial banks and global reserve fund managers can pick up some of the slack if the retail bid fades from U.S. Treasuries. However, in an environment of strong global growth, rising inflation and more hawkish central banks, it may require higher yields to entice those buyers to ramp up their allocations. In the near-term, the next wave of global bond-bearish news will have to come from upside surprises in inflation, not growth. The Citi Global Economic Data Surprise index - which has historically correlated with swings in global bond yields - is now at elevated levels which should raise the odds of data disappointments as growth expectations get revised up (Chart 3). The Citi Global Inflation Data Surprise index, however, remains just below zero after last year's plunge, but is showing signs of stabilizing (bottom panel). U.S. inflation is already starting to bottom out, but Euro Area core inflation has been underwhelming of late. It will likely take a rise in the latter to trigger the next move higher in global yields, as the market will begin to more aggressively price in less accommodative monetary policy from the ECB. For now, U.S. Treasuries are driving the path of yields, with the "leadership" of the bond bear market expected to switch to Europe later on in 2018. In terms of our recommend duration strategy and country allocations, we are sticking with our current positions which are finally beginning to move in favor of our forecasts (Chart 4): Chart 3The Next Leg Higher In Global Yields##BR##Must Be Driven By Inflation Surprises Chart 4Our Recommended##BR##Country & Curve Allocations Underweights to countries where we expect central banks to hike rates (U.S., Canada) or more openly discuss a tapering of asset purchases (Germany, France). Overweights to countries where we expect no change in policy rates (U.K., Australia) or only modest changes to asset purchase programs (Japan). Positioning for steeper yield curves in countries where growth is strong, economies are at or beyond full employment, but where inflation expectations remain far enough below central bank targets to prevent policymakers from turning more hawkish faster than expected (U.S., Germany, Japan). Bottom Line: Global bond yields continue to move higher, driven by rising inflation expectations and falling investor risk aversion. With global interest rates still not at levels that will restrict growth or draw capital away from booming equity markets, the path of least resistance for yields remains upward. Maintain a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, with a bearish curve steepening bias in the U.S. and core Europe. U.K. Gilts: The BoE's Hands Are Tied In our final report of 2017, we updated our recommended allocations in our Model Bond Portfolio based on the key views stemming from the 2018 BCA Outlook.2 We upgraded our country allocation to U.K. Gilts to overweight, primarily as a "defensive" position within a portfolio positioned for an expected rise in global bond yields. That may sound surprising given the current elevated level of inflation and low unemployment rate in the U.K. Yet our view is based on the notion that the Bank of England (BoE) will have a very difficult time trying to raise interest rates at all in 2018 when other major global central banks are likely to take a more hawkish turn. The main reason that the BoE will be unable to do much on the interest rate front is that the U.K. economy is likely to slow in the coming quarters. The OECD leading economic indicator is decelerating steadily, and is pointing to a real GDP growth rate below 2% in 2018 (Chart 5). The updated IMF forecast for the U.K. calls for growth to only reach 1.5% in both 2018 and 2019. The biggest factors that will weigh on growth will be a sluggish consumer and softer capex. Household consumption growth has already been slowing since early 2017, driven by diminishing consumer confidence (Chart 6, top panel). High realized inflation which has sapped the purchasing power of U.K. workers who have not seen matching increases in wages, is weighing on confidence (3rd panel). Consumers were able to maintain a decent pace of spending during a period of stagnant real income growth by drawing down on savings, but that looks to be tapped out now with the saving rate down to a 19-year low of 5.5% (bottom panel). Chart 5U.K. Growth Set To Slow Chart 6The U.K. Consumer Looks Tapped Out Making matters worse, U.K. consumers are not seeing much of a wealth effect from the housing market. The December 2017 readings of the year-over-year growth rate of U.K. house prices from the Halifax and Nationwide house prices came in at 1.1% and 2.5% respectively (Chart 7, top panel). In addition, the net balance of national house price expectations from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) survey has steadily declined since mid-2016 and now sits just above zero (i.e. equal number of respondents expecting higher prices and falling prices). The same indicator for London was a staggering -54% in November 2017. U.K. homeowners have had to take a lot of hits over the past couple of years. A 2016 hike in the stamp duty for second homes and buy-to-let properties prompted a plunge in more "speculative" property transactions. The squeeze on real household incomes that has damaged consumer spending has also made homes less affordable, even with very low mortgage rates. Most importantly, the 2016 Brexit vote and subsequent uncertainty over the U.K.'s future relationship with Europe has placed an enormous cloud over housing demand - both from potential reduced immigration to the U.K. and businesses and jobs potentially relocating to European Union countries. The Brexit uncertainty is also weighing on U.K. business investment spending. U.K. capital expenditure growth slowed to 4.3% year-over-year in nominal terms in Q3 2017, and is even lower in real terms (Chart 8, top panel). Capex is generally import-intensive, and the rise in import costs due to the depreciation of the Pound after the 2016 Brexit vote raised the cost of investment. Chart 7No Growth In##BR##U.K. Housing Chart 8Brexit Gloom Trumps Export##BR##Boom For U.K. Companies This explains why U.K. capital spending has lagged even with manufacturing indicators in decent shape, such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey which shows the highest readings on total industrial orders and export orders since 1988 and 1995, respectively (2nd panel). Yet non-financial credit growth stalled out in the latter half of 2017, while the CBI survey of business optimism has turned into negative territory. Brexit uncertainties are clearly trumping strong export demand, thus U.K. capital investment is likely to remain sluggish in 2018 even with robust global growth. With U.K. economic growth likely to slow in 2018, the lingering problem of high inflation should start to fade. Already, both headline and core CPI inflation have stabilized, with the latter actually drifting a touch lower in the latter half of 2017 (Chart 9). The small gap between the two can be explained by the rise in global oil prices seen over the past year. The impact of oil on U.K. inflation expectations is relatively modest compared to other countries with much lower realized inflation rates, as we discussed in last week's Weekly Report.3 What is far more relevant is the path of British pound. The 16% plunge in the trade-weighted sterling index after the 2016 Brexit vote was a major reason why U.K. realized inflation blew through the BoE's 2% target last year. The currency has since stabilized at a depressed level and traded in a relatively narrow range in 2017. The trade-weighted index is now 3% above year-ago-levels, which should help U.K. inflation rates drift lower in the next 6-12 months - especially if U.K. growth underwhelms at the same time. Already, the more stable currency has allowed the inflation rates of import prices and producer prices to fall sharply last year (bottom panel), which should soon start to feed through into overall inflation rates. Lower realized inflation would be a welcome boost for the spending power of U.K. households and businesses, but will likely be dwarfed by the impact of oil prices in the near term. More importantly, the slowing momentum of economic growth, now fueled more by Brexit uncertainty than high inflation, will limit the BoE's ability to continue normalizing the very low level of U.K. interest rates. Our 12-month U.K. discounter shows that markets are pricing in 25bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months (Chart 10). The forward path of interest rates shown in the U.K. Overnight Index Swaps curve suggests that the hike could come by October. That is unlikely to happen given the slump in leading economic indicators, and peaking in currency-fueled inflation, currently underway. Chart 9Currency-Fueled U.K. Inflation Is Peaking Out Chart 10Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts A stand-pat BoE, combined with more stable and potentially falling U.K. inflation, will limit the ability for U.K. Gilt yields to rise by as much as we are expecting in the U.S., and even core Europe, over the next 6-12 months. Gilts have become a relative safe haven within a global bond bear market in the developed markets, with a yield beta of around 0.5 to U.S. Treasuries and German government bonds. This has already allowed Gilts to outperform the Barclays Global Treasury index (in currency-hedged terms) since the most recent cyclical low in global bond yields last September (bottom panel). We continue to expect Gilts to outperform in 2018. Stay overweight. Bottom Line: The momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. Stay overweight Gilts. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/01/11/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2018 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Our Model Bond Allocation In 2018: A Tale Of Two Halves", dated December 19th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Importance Of Oil", dated January 16th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

There is a once in a decade opportunity to prefer value over growth (V/G) stocks, and we recommend shifting our style bias in favor of value stocks. Typically, the V/G ratio moves in multi-year up and down cycles, and at the current juncture it is a screaming buy, if history at least rhymes (top panel). Relative sector composition implies a value over growth preference would equate to a positive interest rate and oil price correlation. Indeed, the 10-year Treasury yield moves in lockstep with the V/G ratio and similarly oil prices are joined at the hip with relative performance (second and third panels). One of BCA’s themes for 2018 is higher interest rates, with our bond strategists still expecting an inflation-driven rise in the 10-year Treasury yield near 3%. Similarly, BCA’ commodity strategists remain constructive on oil prices. Taken together, these BCA views warrant a value over growth preference. Bottom Line: Boost value stock exposure at the expense of growth equities. The V/G ratio offers an excellent entry point with limited downside risk.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Relative sector index composition, the macro backdrop, relative operating metrics along with compelling valuations and washed out technicals suggest that a value over growth style bias is warranted. Rising interest rates and a flattening yield curve, coupled with increasing relative indebtedness and lack of relative profit growth signal that the time is right to shift the capitalization bias to a neutral setting. Recent Changes Shift the style bias and favor value over growth today. Book profits in the small over large cap size bias of 2% since the mid-August 2016 inception. Table 1 Feature Equities catapulted to new all-time highs last week as earnings season got underway. Upbeat bank reports set the tone, and SPX profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher, on the back of the tax bill passage, rising from 12% to 16% in a mere three weeks, according to Thomson Reuters/IBES. Our SPX EPS growth model agrees that, cyclically, profits will continue to drift higher and a low-to-mid double-digit growth rate is likely for 2018, as we posited last week.1 While the synchronized and disinflationary global growth narrative continues to dominate, we are a bit uneasy. The eerie calm overtaking the markets, and headlines like this recent one from Bloomberg "The Stock Market Never Goes Down" give us cause for concern. As a reminder, the SPX is up 1000 points since the 1800 level registered in early-2016. Put differently, the SPX has been rising by roughly 25% per annum for the past two years. Such a breakneck pace is unsustainable. Our sense is that from a tactical perspective, equities are currently extremely stretched and warrant some caution. Therefore, this week we identify five key signposts we are closely monitoring that are sending clear warning signals (for a more comprehensive list please see the tactical section of our August 7th White Paper).2 First, our reflation gauge (RG) has taken a turn for the worse (Chart 1). At the margin, higher oil prices and interest rates may begin to bite. Historically, our RG has been an excellent leading indicator of both sentiment that has vaulted to multi-decade highs and CITI's economic surprise index. Our global reflation gauge emits a similar signal (not shown). Mean reversion is looming. Second, speculation runs rampant. Our Equity Speculation Index (ESI) is close to two standard deviations above the historical mean. Since the early-1960s, the ESI has only been higher during the dotcom bubble (Chart 2). While the ESI can rise further, it is at least waving a yellow flag. Investor sentiment has also gone parabolic with the bull/bear ratio reaching a level last seen right before the 1987 crash (third panel, Chart 2). Chart 1Yellow Flag Chart 2Extended Third, financial conditions are as good as they get. The St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index recently hit an all-time low level. Similarly, Goldman Sachs' and the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions indexes are also near uncharted territory. This should be cause for some trepidation (Chart 3). Fourth, extended EPS breadth, all time highs in net earnings revisions, stretched median valuations and overbought technical conditions are near levels that have marked previous temporary broad market pullbacks (Chart 4). Finally, gold is behaving strangely. While the U.S. dollar's selloff explains part of the recent jump in the shiny metal, we think bullion may be sniffing out some trouble as it remains a true safe haven asset. Either real rates have to come down or gold has to reverse course; such a steep divergence is unsustainable (gold shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Chart 3As Good As It Gets Chart 4Peak Euphoria? Chart 5What's Gold Sniffing Out? Since December 18th our strategy has been to book gains in tactical trades and to refrain from altering our cyclical over defensive portfolio positioning bent,3 as we do not foresee a recession in the coming 9-12 months.4 We continue to pursue this strategy and were a 5-10% selloff to materialize, we would "buy the dip". In addition, this week we introduce/apply a risk management measure to our recently revealed high-conviction 2018 calls.5 Almost all of our calls are in the black outperforming the broad market on average by 640bps (Chart 6). While we are not compelled to change our views just yet, our confidence is not as high as two months ago, especially in the two calls that are registering double-digit relative returns. Thus, we suggest that clients institute a tight stop in these trades (please see the "Stop" column in the "Top High-Conviction Calls For 2018" table on page 15). Going forward, we will introduce such risk management trailing stops once a call clears the 10% relative return mark. This week we shift both our style and size biases. Chart 6Time To Set Stops Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth There is a once in a decade opportunity to prefer value over growth (V/G) stocks, and we recommend shifting our style bias in favor of value stocks. Typically, the V/G ratio moves in multi-year up and down cycles, and at the current juncture it is a screaming buy, if history at least rhymes. Chart 7 shows that relative share prices are not only near previous troughs, but also 1.5 standard deviations below the six-decade time trend. Chart 7Compelling Entry Point In fact we already have a flavor of this style preference in one of our market-neutral pair trades, long financials / short tech (for additional details on this trade please refer to our "Disentangling Pricing Power" early-summer report). Table 2 depicts why this is so: financials stocks dominate value indexes, while IT comprises 40% of growth indexes. Sector composition also suggests that a long energy / short health care trade would mimic this V/G preference, as energy stocks offer a lot of value, whereas health care stocks sit prominently in growth indexes (Table 2 & Chart 8). While we do not have this pair trade on per se, as a reminder we are overweight the energy sector and underweight health care stocks; we are also overweight financials and underweight tech (please see page 14 for a complete picture of our current sector recommendations). Table 2Sector Composition With regard to macro variables, these sector preferences would equate to a positive interest rate and oil price correlation. Indeed, the 10-year Treasury yield moves in lockstep with the V/G ratio and similarly oil prices are joined at the hip with relative performance (Chart 9). Chart 8Value/Growth Replicas Chart 9Rising Oil And Rates = Buy Value / Sell Growth One of BCA's themes for 2018 is higher interest rates, with our bond strategists still expecting an inflation-driven rise in the 10-year Treasury yield near 3%. Similarly, BCA' commodity strategists remain constructive on oil prices. Taken together, these BCA views warrant a value over growth preference. Importantly, since the depths of the GFC, value has underwhelmed growth by a wide margin. Likely, this growth over value preference reflected central bank interest rate suppression, which boosted the multiple investors were willing to pay for perceived growth at a time when growth was scarce. Now that the Fed has lifted rates five times since December 2015 and is on track to do so three more times this year, value should take the reins (Chart 10). Moreover, the Fed is unwinding its balance sheet and that tightening in monetary conditions, at the margin, favors value over growth (Chart 11). Chart 10Avoid Growth Stocks During Fed Tightening Cycles... Chart 11...And During Quantitative Tightening On the currency front, the V/G ratio has had a tight positive correlation with the EUR/USD foreign exchange rate (Chart 12). Once again sector composition has been underpinning this relationship. However, sector composition is constantly shifting. Currently, a larger percentage of growth stocks have international sales (especially tech) compared with more domestically-oriented value stocks. Thus, the depreciating U.S. dollar is a risk to our value over growth preference On the operating metric front, value stocks have the upper hand versus their growth siblings. Our relative composite pricing power gauge has swung by eight percentage points from trough-to-peak and heralds a deflation exit for relative top line growth (middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 12Depreciating U.S. Dollar Is ##br##Typically A Boon To The V/G Ratio Chart 13Relative Pricing Power ##br##Favors Value Over Growth Sell-side analysts have taken notice and have been aggressively bumping their net earnings revisions in favor of value versus growth indexes. As mentioned earlier, rising oil price inflation and better credit pricing power are a boon to V/G profit prospects (bottom panel, Chart 13). Valuations and technicals also suggest that investors should overweight value at the expense of growth. Our relative Valuation Indicator (VI) has recently sunk to a level last hit in the early-2000s, approaching one standard deviation below the historical mean. Similarly, the V/G ratio is oversold and our relative Technical Indicator (TI) has fallen to a level that has marked previous bull market phases (Chart 14). Finally, over the past thirty years V/G price moves have been a mirror image of both junk bond yields and vol. In other words, a value over growth preference has been synonymous with a "risk on" backdrop (junk yield and the VIX shown inverted, Chart 15). However, these close correlations appear to have broken down since the Great Recession as the Fed's unconventional monetary policies functioned well in keeping a lid on vol and suppressing bond yields across the fixed income spectrum. Chart 14Value Vs Growth Stocks Are Cheap And Oversold Chart 15Bet On Convergence As the Fed winds down its balance sheet there are good odds that volatility will make a comeback and interest rates will also shoot higher. The upshot is that these inverse correlations get reestablished in the coming quarters via a rise in the V/G ratio, an increase in vol and a selloff in the junk corporate bond market (Chart 15). Adding it up, relative sector composition, the macro backdrop, relative operating metrics along with a compelling VI reading and our washed out TI suggest that a value over growth style bias is warranted. Bottom Line: Boost value stock exposure at the expense of growth equities. The V/G ratio offers an excellent entry point with limited downside risk. Book Profits In Small Caps Vs. Large Caps And Move To The Sidelines In August 2016, we recommended a small over large cap (S/L) bias, predating the Trump election victory, on the back of five key drivers: non-inflationary growth would persist allowing central banks to stay incredibly accommodative, emerging market tail risks had eased taming equity market vol, small/large sector composition differentials, relative EPS fundamentals and restored relative valuations. Given that most of these factors have moved in favor of small versus large caps and some are starting to shift against the S/L ratio, does it still pay to have a small cap size bias? The short answer is no, and we now recommend investors book profits and move to the sidelines. While the euphoric tailwind surrounding the new administration and its promise to slash red tape and taxes tripped us up and we failed to monetize 10%+ gains, better late than never. First, from a big picture perspective, the near two decade S/L outperformance phase is running on fumes and it has likely put in a secular top in late-2016 (Chart 16). Similar to the style bias, this ratio also tends to move in long cycles. We are clearly in extended territory hovering at one standard deviation above the historical time trend. Chart 16Major Top? Second, interest rates bear close attention. Rising interest rates on the back of an inflationary impulse is BCA's view for the coming year and, coupled with the yield curve narrowing, are a harbinger of small cap trouble. Chart 17 shows the tight positive correlation between the S/L ratio and the yield curve, and the current message is to avoid small caps. Small caps are mostly domestically exposed and are ultra-sensitive to interest rate moves as small and medium businesses rely more heavily on their bankers for credit, rather than debt markets. When the yield curve flattens late in the cycle it is typically because the Fed is aggressively tightening monetary policy. While such a monetary backdrop is neither conducive to small nor to large firms, small caps suffer more, at the margin. Third, we are perplexed by the lack of profit growth in the small cap complex. It has now been over a year since Trump came into power and small cap EPS underperformance has been extremely prominent (top panel, Chart 18). The 12-month forward profit growth delta has also widened considerably over the past year to the detriment of small caps (middle panel, Chart 18). While the U.S. dollar's sizable depreciation explains part of the profit divergence, i.e. as the currency falls foreign sales exposed large caps enjoy a significant translation gain, relative indebtedness is also likely playing a key role. The bottom panel of Chart 19 shows the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the small cap and large cap indexes. The relative ratio has gone parabolic and is making all-time highs. Rising small cap indebtedness, at a time when cash flow growth is anemic, suggests that the S&P 600 is increasingly vulnerable. Not only are interest payments eating into income, but also refinancing risk is a threat in an era of rising interest rates. Under such a backdrop, small cap stocks should not trade at a valuation premium (bottom panel, Chart 18). Chart 17Yield Curve Blues Chart 18Small Cap Profit Trouble Chart 19Mind The Small Cap Indebtedness Bottom Line: The time is ripe to take profits of 2% and move to the sidelines in the capitalization bias. Were our indicators to further deteriorate, we would not hesitate to fully reverse course and prefer large to small caps. Stay tuned. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: U.S. Equity Market Indicators (Part I)," dated August 7, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "EPS And 'Nothing Else Matters'," dated December 18, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth and stay neutral small over large caps.

Highlights The Beige Book released on January 17 keeps the Fed on track to raise rates at least three times this year and highlights the impact of the tax bill on the economy. BCA's Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book highlights several of the positive trends supporting our view of the economy, the tax bill and the Fed. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 has the potential to generate significant supply-side benefits for consumers, shareholders and the broad economy. We decided to stay long the dollar after a lengthy internal debate, although we have revised down our view on the upside potential. Feature U.S. risk assets continued to outperform last week outside of the dollar, as S&P 500 firms started to report Q4 2017 results and provide guidance for Q1 2018 and beyond. BCA's Bank Lending Beige Book summarizes the most optimistic comments from the Big 5 banks. The Fed's Beige Book captured comments on the broad economy in December and early January that were equally ebullient. Both Beige books suggested that firms were planning to return their tax savings to shareholders in the New Year, and to continue to boost capex, which was stout even before the law was passed. Yet, despite the upbeat news, the dollar broke down last week, as the ECB sounded a hawkish note and the Japanese economy continued to improve. On balance, the Beige Book, the Q4 earnings season, the health of the U.S. economy (notably capital spending), all support BCA's stance on the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio, the Fed, duration and the dollar. However, the dollar has not behaved as we would have expected. Beige Book Barometer Bounces The Beige Book released on January 17 keeps the Fed on track to raise rates at least three times this year and highlights the impact of the tax bill on the economy. BCA's quantitative approach1 to the Beige Book's qualitative data points to underlying strength in GDP and a tighter labor market, but there is still a disconnect between the Beige Book's view of inflation and the market's stance. Moreover, references to the stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book and business uncertainty is significantly reduced, reflecting the tax cut bill and President Trump's assault on regulation. Chart 1Latest Beige Book Supports##BR##The Fed's View On Rates, Economy Chart 1, panel 1 shows that at 66%, BCA's Beige Book Monitor stayed near its cycle highs in January, re-confirmation that the underlying economy was still upbeat in Q4 and early 2018. (The latest Beige Book covered the period from mid-November 2017 to January 8, 2018). The number of 'weak' words in the Beige Book returned to near four-year lows after ticking higher in the wake of last summer's hurricanes. Moreover, there were 12 mentions of the tax bill in the January Beige Book, up from only 3 in November (not shown). The tax bill was cast in a positive light in 75% of the remarks. In November, the references to either the tax bill (or tax reform) cited the consequent uncertainty as a constraint on growth. Based on the minimal references to a robust dollar in the past five Beige Books, the greenback should not be an issue in Q4 2017 or Q1 2018, which is in sharp contrast with 2015 and early 2016 when there was a surge in Beige Book mentions (Chart 1, panel 4). The last time that five consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) ticked up in the past few Beige Books as Congress debated the particulars of the tax bill. Nonetheless, comments of uncertainty in the Beige Book have dropped since Trump took office in early 2017. The implication is that the business community is correctly focused on policy and not politics in D.C. (Chart 1, panel 5). The disconnect with the Fed on inflation is evident in the Beige Book's number of inflation words (Chart 1, panel 3). Expressions regarding inflation rose to a four-month high in January and the disconnect persists between the still-elevated mentions of inflation and the soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The recent Beige Book backs BCA's view that the U.S. economy is poised to grow above its long-term potential in the first half of 2018. However, the Beige Book has done little to resolve the debate around why an economy growing above potential and a tightening labor market have not boosted inflation. Likewise, the latest Beige Book confirmed that at least initially, businesses and bankers across the U.S. welcomed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Bankers' Beige Book Returns Chart 2Banking System Shipshape BCA's Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book highlights several of the positive trends supporting our view: Pristine credit quality, a positive U.S. credit impulse, loosening U.S. banking regulatory requirements, and pent up demand for shareholder friendly activities. We introduced the Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book2 in early 2014 to interpret the health of the banking system based on comments from leaders of the Big Five banks during earnings season. Managements were upbeat on loan demand and credit quality as they unveiled Q4 results in the past two weeks, and most expressed optimism that the positive credit trends would continue to improve in 2018. Several bank executives shared their Fed rate hike expectations for this year, with most forecasting three or four increases. One institution planned for a flatter curve, while another noted that rising rates on both the short and long ends will benefit their operations. Chart 2 shows key banking related variables cited in the Bank Lending Beige Book. Appendix Table 1 shows the Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book for Q4 2017. All five banks were uniformly upbeat in their assessments of the tax bill's impact on their operations, their customers' businesses or the overall economy. One bank noted that it took a repatriation charge in Q4, and another said it would return capital to shareholders via buybacks and dividends. A third said the bill will provide "immediate and ongoing benefit to our employees, customers, communities and our shareholders, as we invest a portion of our tax savings in each of these important constituencies." Bottom Line: The banking system is shipshape as 2018 begins and lenders are ready to extend credit to businesses and consumers to boost the economy despite higher rates. BCA's U.S. Equity strategists recommend an overweight position in the S&P 500's financial sector, with a high conviction overweight on banks.3 A Different Lens On Earnings Chart 3Corporate Health Has Improved##BR##Since Start Of 2017 The early December release of the U.S. flow of funds report allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) (Chart 3). The CHM's level improved slightly between Q2 and Q3, but the overall reading remains in 'deteriorating health' territory. The marginal improvement in Q3 was driven by rising profit margins. In addition, profit growth surged while debt moved up modestly in Q3. The CHM is a reliable indicator of the trend in corporate bond spreads which supports our corporate bond overweight. Given that corporate balance sheets are declining, the sole supports for corporate spreads are low inflation and accommodative monetary policy. We anticipate spreads will start to widen later this year when inflation climbs and policy turns more restrictive. BCA's U.S. Bond strategists remain overweight the U.S. high-yield bond market.4 Although spreads appear a bit more attractive than for investment-grade corporates, there is still not much room for spread compression in high-yields. We calculate that if the high-yield index spread tightens by another 117 bps, then junk bonds will be the most expensive since 1995. In an optimistic scenario where the index spread tightens 100 bps, bringing it close to all-time expensive levels, then we would expect junk excess returns to be in the range of 600 bps (annualized). Nonetheless, in view of the trends in corporate leverage, it is unlikely that there will be another 100 bps of spread tightening. More realistically, we expect excess returns between 200 bps and 500 bps (annualized) between now and the end of the credit cycle. Bottom Line: BCA's indicators suggest that we are moving into the late stages of the credit cycle, but we retain an overweight cyclical stance on corporate bonds. A shift to a more restrictive monetary policy, tightening C&I bank lending standards and/or a continued uptrend in gross corporate leverage are the main catalysts we will monitor to gauge the end of the cycle. An abrupt end to the positive capex or earnings cycle would also be concerns for our upbeat view on credit. Repatriation Redux The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 has the potential to generate significant supply-side benefits for consumers, shareholders and the broad economy. There are several uses for corporate cash, including capital spending, M&A, increasing compensation to employees, paying down debt and returning capital to shareholders. Chart 4 shows that through Q3 2017, share buybacks and dividends ran slightly ahead of prior cycles, while capex was about average. Investors wonder how that mix may change under the new law. Corporate behavior in the wake of the 2004 overseas tax holiday5 provides some guidance. Chart 4Comparison Of Corporate Outlays Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Corporations used cash generated from the 2004 tax break to return capital to shareholders. However, we found scant evidence that firms who benefited from the tax holiday increased capital spending, raised wages or hired more workers. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) noted that a dollar increase in repatriations "was associated with an increase of almost $1 in payouts to shareholders."6 Moreover, a 2008 IRS paper7 concluded that nearly half of all the cash repatriated in 2004 and 2005 came from only the tech and pharma sectors. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that small firms tended to benefit less than large firms from the tax holiday.8 A paper9 by the left-leaning, U.S.-based think tank, the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), stated that several firms that benefitted the most from the 2004 law laid off workers soon after the tax law was enacted. In 2018, BCA expects firms to return capital to shareholders, boost capex and continue to bump up wages. Chart 5 shows that buybacks will probably augment S&P 500 EPS by around 2% this year, while panel 2 shows that there was a noticeable upswing to buyback announcements as 2017 ended. Aside from the post-recession bounce in buybacks in 2010, the last big swell in buyback announcements occurred in 2004 and 2005. That said, corporate balance sheets were in much better shape in 2004/2005 than they are today (Chart 3 again). The implication is that management teams may decide to pay down debt before returning the cash windfall back to shareholders. However, with rates still low, most firms will chose to distribute the cash to shareholders, despite high corporate debt levels. The positive reading on BCA's Capital Structure Preference Indicator supports our stance on buybacks (Chart 6, third panel). This Indicator is defined as the equity risk premium minus the default-adjusted yield in high-yield corporate bonds. When the indicator is above zero, there is financial incentive for firms to issue debt and buy back shares. Conversely, firms are incentivized to issue stock and retire debt when the indicator is below zero. The Indicator is currently positive, although not as high as it was in 2015. Moreover, Chart 7 shows that the dividend payout ratio rebounded from the 2007-2009 financial crisis, but has moved above its pre-crisis level. However, dividend distributions remain below their pre-crisis peak reached in the early 1990s. Chart 5Still Some Room##BR##To Run For Buybacks Chart 6Buybacks Adding Almost##BR##2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth Capital spending was already on a tear in late 2017, even before the tax bill passed. Industrial production, the PMI diffusion index and advanced-economy capital goods imports, all confirm strong underlying momentum in investment spending (Chart 8). Chart 7Corporations Poised To Return##BR##Capital To Shareholders Chart 8Capital Spending Helping##BR##To Drive Growth Both BCA's real and nominal capex models, driven by surging capital goods orders along with elevated ISM data, roaring global exports and soaring sentiment on business spending, indicate strong investment in plant and equipment in the next few quarters (Chart 9). CEO confidence soared to a 13-year high in Q4, according to the latest Duke's Fuqua School of Business/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook (Chart 10, panel 1). Duke noted that "Among CFOs who responded to the survey after the Senate passed its version of the tax reform bill, optimism spiked to 73, which is the highest U.S. optimism ever recorded in the history of the survey."10 Chart 9Bright Outlook##BR##For Capital Spending Chart 10CEO Confidence And##BR##Capex Plans Surging Surveys by the Conference Board and Business Roundtable show a similar pattern. (panel 1 again). Notably, the soundings on all three surveys have climbed since Trump's election, but then retreated as his pro-business agenda stalled in the summer months. The dip in sentiment reflected the lack of legislative progress in Washington in the first 10 months of the Trump administration. The dip in CEO sentiment in Q2 and Q3 was in sharp contrast to the easing of policy concerns in the Fed's Beige Book (Chart 1, bottom panel). The upbeat numbers in the regional FRBs' surveys of capital spending intentions further support escalating capex spending in the next few quarters. The average readings from the New York, Philadelphia and Richmond Feds' capex survey plans are at an all-time high (Chart 10, panel 2). Moreover, the regional Feds' capex spending plans diffusion index is close to a cycle high, despite a modest pullback last summer (panel 3). Bottom Line: Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, and underweight duration. The tax bill will boost returns to shareholders via buybacks and dividends. In addition, rising capex will drive up GDP, employment and EPS in the coming quarters. Dollar View Revisited The dollar fell by 4% between mid-December and mid-January, amid a hawkish market interpretation of the ECB minutes, persistently strong growth in Japan and a key technical breakdown in the DXY index. The decline has some investors questioning BCA's bullish stance on the currency (Chart 11). We were correct on the direction of interest rate differentials vis-à-vis the other major economies, but this has not translated into a stronger dollar so far. We decided to stay long the dollar after a lengthy internal debate, although we have revised down our view on the upside potential. A lot of good news on the European and Japanese economies is now discounted and investors are quite pessimistic on the dollar (which is bullish the dollar from a contrary perspective) (Chart 12). Given this technical backdrop, we would expect at least a 5% rise in the trade-weighted dollar as expectations of Fed rate hikes rise this year. We are likely to exit our long dollar position if we get such an appreciation. Chart 11We Are Sticking With##BR##Our Long Dollar View Chart 12The Case For Crisis Era Monetary Stimulus##BR##In Europe And Japan Is Weakening Bottom Line: BCA's bullish dollar trade was initiated in October 2014 and although the DXY index is up 4% since that time, we are maintaining the trade. While downside risks remain, a unilateral decision by the Trump Administration to leave NAFTA will boost the U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar and the peso. Italy's upcoming spring Presidential election could prompt a rally in the dollar if the Eurosceptic parties outperform expectations. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", published on April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Commitments", published January 20, 2014. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "High Conviction Calls", published November 27, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "January Effect", published January 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/4520 6 http://www.nber.org/papers/w15023 7 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08codivdeductbul.pdf 8 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40178.pdf 9 https://www.cbpp.org/research/tax-holiday-for-overseas-corporate-profits-would-increase-deficits-fail-to-boost-the 10 http://www.cfosurvey.org/2017q4/press-release.html Appendix: Bankers Beige Book