Inflation

Special Report

Dear Client, This is the first of a two-part Special Report dealing with the question of whether a significant pickup in global inflation may be lurking around the corner. In this week's report, we look back at the causes of the Great Inflation of the 1970s to see if they are still relevant today. While there are plenty of differences, there are also a number of important similarities. In a forthcoming report, we will challenge the often-heard arguments that globalization, automation, e-commerce, aging populations, excessive indebtedness, and the declining role of trade unions all limit the ability of inflation to rise. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The likelihood of a significant increase in inflation over the coming years is greater than the market believes. Just as in the 1960s, policymakers are coming around to the idea that there may be an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment. Despite abundant evidence that inflation is a highly lagging indicator, the pressure to keep monetary policy accommodative until the "whites of inflation's eyes" are visible will remain strong. Political influence over the conduct of monetary policy is likely to increase, as already evidenced by Trump's tweets lambasting Jay Powell, suggestions that the Bank of Japan explicitly monetize government debt, Jeremy Corbyn's call for a "People's QE," and the ongoing need for the ECB to keep rates low in order to forestall a sovereign debt crisis in Italy. Feature Chart 1Back To Full Employment In The USA... The U.S. Labor Market Keeps Tightening The U.S. labor market continues to tighten. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 157,000 in July. While this was below consensus expectations of a 193,000 rise, much of the shortfall appears to have been due to a sharp drop in employment among sporting goods and hobby retailers, a category that includes the now-defunct Toys 'R' Us. Revisions to past months pushed up the three-month average payroll gain to 224,000, more than double the additional 100,000 jobs that are needed every month to keep up with population growth. The U-6 unemployment rate - a broad measure of joblessness that includes marginally-attached workers and part-time workers who desire full-time employment - fell by 0.3 percentage points to a fresh cycle low of 7.5%. There are currently more job openings than unemployed workers. A record 75% of labor market entrants have been able to find a job within one month. Business surveys show that companies are struggling to find qualified workers (Chart 1). Inflation: Dead Or Dormant? Despite the increasingly tight labor market, wage growth has been slow to accelerate (Chart 2). Wages of production and non-supervisory employees barely rose in July. The year-over-year change in the Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers edged up to 2.9% in the second quarter, but remains well below its pre-recession peak. The Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker has actually been trending lower since mid-2016. The core PCE deflator rose by 1.9% year-over-year in June, shy of expectations of a 2.0% increase. Most other measures of core inflation remain reasonably well contained (Chart 3). The failure of wage and price inflation to take off in the face of diminished spare capacity has led many observers to conclude that inflation is unlikely to move materially higher. Both market expectations and household surveys reflect this sentiment. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below their pre-Great Recession average (Chart 4). Long-term inflation expectations in the University of Michigan survey are near record lows. Breaking down the University of Michigan survey, one can see that most of the decline in inflation expectations in recent years has stemmed from a smaller share of respondents expecting very high inflation. Chart 2...But Wage Growth Has Been Slow To Accelerate Chart 3Core Inflation Measures Remain Contained Chart 4Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Subdued Fears of a 1970-style inflation episode continue to recede. But could most observers turn out to be wrong? Could a major bout of inflation be lurking around the corner? No one knows for sure, but we would attach a much larger probability to such an outcome than the market is currently assigning. On a risk-adjusted basis, this justifies a cautious view towards long-term bonds. Causes Of The Great Inflation To understand why we think a repeat of the 1970s is a greater risk than is generally accepted, it is useful to ask what caused inflation to spiral out of control during that decade. Much of the academic debate has focused on two competing explanations: call it the "bad luck" view versus the "bad ideas" view. We side with the latter. The "bad luck" view blames rising inflation on a series of unforeseen and unforeseeable shocks. These include the OPEC oil embargoes, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates, and the deceleration in productivity growth that occurred during the 1970s. One major problem with the "bad luck" view is timing. As Chart 5 shows, inflation in the U.S. began to spiral out of control starting in 1966, five years before Bretton Woods collapsed and seven years before the first oil shock. Inflation also initially accelerated during a period when productivity growth was still strong. Chart 5AInflation Started To Pick Up Before##br## 'Bad Luck' Hit The U.S. Economy Chart 5BInflation Started To Pick Up Before ##br##'Bad Luck' Hit The U.S. Economy Reverse Causality Chart 6Oil Lagged Other Commodities ##br##Between 1971 And 1973 Rather than causing inflation to rise, it is quite possible that all three of the shocks listed above were, to some extent, the result of higher inflation. This certainly seems the case for the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, whose existence helped provide a critical nominal anchor for the money supply and, by extension, the price level. At its core, the system functioned like a quasi-gold standard, with the price of U.S. dollars set at $35 per ounce and all other currencies being pegged to the dollar. Inflationary policies in the U.S. and many other countries in the late 1960s made gold cheap relative to regular goods and services, leading to a shortage of bullion. As the largest holder of gold, the U.S. found itself in a position where other countries were swapping their currencies into dollars and then redeeming those dollars for gold. In a desperate bid to stem gold outflows, the U.S. devalued the dollar, which forced foreigners to sacrifice more local currency to get the same amount of gold. When that was not enough, President Nixon ordered the closure of the gold window in August 1971 and imposed a temporary 10% surcharge on imports. The delinking of the price of gold from the dollar ignited a bull market in bullion that ultimately saw the price of the yellow metal reach $850 per ounce in January 1980. The prices of other metals jumped, as did food prices. Farmland entered a speculative bubble. OPEC was initially slow to react to the seismic changes sweeping the globe (Chart 6). The price of oil barely rose between 1971 and 1973, even as other commodity prices soared. The Yom Kippur war shook the cartel out of its slumber. Within the span of four months, the price of oil more than doubled, marking the first of a series of oil shocks. It is hard to know if OPEC would have reacted differently in an environment where the Bretton Woods system did not collapse and the value of the dollar did not tumble. However, it is certainly plausible that excessively easy monetary conditions in the years leading up to the 1973 oil shock created an environment in which the price of crude ended up rising more than it would have otherwise. The dislocations caused by runaway inflation in the 1970s probably had some role in the productivity slowdown during that decade. In general, the economic literature has found that high and volatile inflation has an adverse effect on productivity.1 The fact that policymakers reacted to rising inflation in the 1970s with price controls and trade restrictions only exacerbated the problem. Bad Ideas The temporary imposition of price and wage controls in 1971 was just one of a series of policy blunders that occurred during that era, starting with the failure to quell inflationary pressures in the late 1960s. Three bad ideas enabled inflation to get out of hand: First, policymakers mistakenly believed that high unemployment reflected inadequate demand rather than festering labor market rigidities. Second, they incorrectly assumed that there was a permanent trade-off between lower unemployment and higher inflation. Finally, and perhaps most damaging, they increasingly came to see monetary tightening as an ineffective tool in the fight against inflation. Let's examine each bad idea in turn. How Much Slack? Athanasios Orphanides and others have shown that policymakers in the U.S. and elsewhere systemically overestimated the magnitude of slack in their economies (Chart 7). This occurred mainly because they failed to recognize the upward shift in the natural rate of unemployment that took place during this period. Economists continue to debate the reasons why the natural rate of unemployment rose in the second half of the 1960s. Demographics probably played a role. Young people tend to switch jobs more often, and so the mass entry of baby boomers into the labor market probably pushed up frictional unemployment. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program also led to a massive increase in government entitlement spending (Chart 8). Not only did this supercharge demand, but it also arguably reduced the incentive to work by creating an increasingly elaborate welfare state. Chart 7The Tendency To Overestimate The Level Of Slack Chart 8Entitlement Spending Rose Rapidly In The 1960s Whatever the reasons, policymakers were slow to recognize that structural unemployment had risen. This led them to press down on the economic accelerator when they should have been stepping on the brake. Illusory Trade-Offs Once it became clear that rising demand was pushing up prices by more than it was boosting production, the Federal Reserve should have moved quickly to tighten monetary policy. While the Fed did begrudgingly hike rates in 1968-69, it backed off as the economy began to slow. By February 1970, inflation had reached 6.4%. One key reason why the Fed adopted such a lackadaisical attitude towards inflation is that it saw higher inflation as a small price to pay for keeping unemployment low. This conviction stemmed from the false belief that there was a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. Not everyone shared this view. Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. However, once people caught on to what was happening, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: lenders would increase nominal borrowing rates and workers would demand higher wages. Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. History ultimately proved Friedman and Phelps correct, but by then the damage had been done. A Dereliction Of Duty Of all the mistakes that central banks made during that period, perhaps the most egregious was their contention that rising inflation had little to do with the way they conducted monetary policy. The June 8th 1971 FOMC minutes noted that Fed Chairman Arthur Burns believed that "monetary policy could do very little to arrest an inflation that rested so heavily on wage-cost pressures. In his judgment a much higher rate of unemployment produced by monetary policy would not moderate such pressures appreciably." 2 This sentiment was echoed by the Council of Economic Advisors, which argued in 1978 that "Recent experience has demonstrated that the inflation we have inherited from the past cannot be cured by policies that slow growth and keep unemployment high." 3 If central banks could not do much to reduce inflation, it stood to reason that the onus had to fall on politicians and their underlings. By shunning their obligation to maintain price stability, central banks opened the door to all sorts of political meddling. And meddle they did. In his exhaustive study of the Nixon tapes, Burton Abrams documented how Richard Nixon sought, and Burns obligingly delivered, an expansionary monetary policy and faster growth in the lead-up to the 1972 election.4 Relevance For The Present Day President Trump's complaints over Twitter about Chair Powell's inclination to keep raising rates is hardly on par with the politicization of monetary policy that occurred during Nixon's presidency. Nevertheless, we may be slowly moving down that slippery slope. And it's not just the Fed. Suggestions that the Bank of Japan explicitly monetize government debt, Jeremy Corbyn's call for a "People's QE," and the ongoing pressure that the ECB will face to keep rates low in order to forestall a sovereign debt crisis in Italy all foreshadow growing political influence over the conduct of monetary policy. History clearly shows that inflation tends to be higher in countries which lack independent central banks (Chart 9). What about the broader question of whether the sort of mistakes that many central banks made in the 1960s and 70s could resurface, perhaps in a different guise? Here is where things get tricky. Today, few economists would question the notion that central banks can reduce inflation if they raise rates by enough to slow growth meaningfully. The Volcker disinflation, as well as the more vigilant approach that the Bundesbank and the Swiss National Bank took towards tackling inflation in the 1970s, are testaments to that (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation Is Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Chart 10The Great Inflation Around The World The problem is that most economists also recognize that central banks lack effective tools in bringing up inflation when confronted with the zero lower-bound on short-term interest rates. This has prompted many prominent economists to argue that central banks should raise their inflation targets above the current standard of two percent. The evidence is mixed about whether a higher inflation target of, say, three or four percent would unmoor inflation expectations by enough to generate an inflationary spiral. Our suspicion is probably not, but we would not dismiss the possibility altogether. Return Of The Paleo-Phillips Curve? Perhaps more relevant at the current juncture is that many influential economists once again see evidence for an exploitable trade-off between inflation and unemployment. One prominent advocate for this view is Paul Krugman. It is well worth quoting Krugman at length: "From the mid-1970s until just the other day, the overwhelming view in macroeconomics was that there is no long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation, that any attempt to hold unemployment below some level determined by structural factors would lead to ever-accelerating inflation. But the data haven't supported that view for a while... Looking forward, the risks of being too loose versus too tight are hugely asymmetric: letting the economy slump again will impose big costs that are never made up, while running it hot won't store up any meaningful trouble for the future." 5 We have some sympathy for Krugman's position, as well as Larry Summers' view that policymakers should not raise rates until they see "the whites of inflation's eyes." Still, one cannot help but notice that these arguments bear some resemblance to the views that pervaded economic circles in the 1960s. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 11). The Federal Reserve has cut its estimate of the natural rate of unemployment from 5.6% in 2012 to 4.45% at present. It has also reduced its estimate of the appropriate long-term level of the nominal federal funds rate from 4.25% to 2.875% over this period (Chart 12). Perhaps these new NAIRU estimates will turn out to be correct; perhaps they won't. The IMF reckons that the U.S. economy is currently operating at 1.2% of GDP above potential. Chart 13 shows that the IMF has consistently overestimated slack in the U.S. and other G7 economies during the past twenty years. It is entirely possible that the U.S. economy is already operating well beyond its full potential, but we will not know this until the lagged effects of diminished slack appear in the inflation data. Chart 11Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 12Estimates Of NAIRU And R* Have Fallen Chart 13The IMF Has Tended To Overestimate Slack In The G7 As we discussed several weeks ago, fiscal stimulus, faster credit growth, higher asset prices, and a rising labor share of total income have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 This lifts the odds that the Fed will find itself behind the curve, causing inflation to rise more than the market is anticipating. Many commentators have argued that excess capacity in the rest of the world will not permit inflation to rise much from current levels, even if the Fed is slow to raise rates. In addition, they contend that automation, e-commerce, and other deflationary technologies, as well as population aging, high debt levels, and the declining influence of trade unions will keep inflation at bay. We will examine these arguments in a forthcoming report. To preview our conclusions, we think they are much weaker than they first appear. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Stanley Fischer, "The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth," NBER Working Paper (December 1993); and Robert J. Barro, "Inflation and Economic Growth," NBER Working Paper (October 1995). 2 Please see "Federal Open Market Committee, Memorandum Of Discussion," Federal Reserve (June 8, 1971). 3 Please see "Economic Report Of The President (Transmitted To The Congress January 1978)," Frasier, Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis (January 1978). 4 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (4): 177-188. 5 Paul Krugman, "Unnatural Economics (Wonkish)," The New York Times, May 6, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

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.

Highlights Either China's growth will slump soon, capping budding inflationary pressures, or policymakers will have to hike interest rates meaningfully to tackle inflation. If the PBoC drags its feet and does not hike interest rates amid rising inflation, the RMB will come under major selling pressure. EM/China corporate profits have expanded predominantly due to price increases. However, rapid price increases warrant higher interest rates. The latter is a formidable risk to share prices. The U.S. dollar has made a major bottom. Stay short select EM currencies. The EM equity rally momentum remains strong but the risk-reward is quite unfavorable. We expect the external backdrop - metals prices and portfolio flows to EM - to deteriorate inhibiting the current easing cycle in Peru. Stay underweight this bourse within the EM universe (page 13). Feature A key question for investors at the current juncture is whether the global economic backdrop is moving toward inflation or deflation - or whether it will remain in its present "goldilocks" state. One can cite numerous examples that support each of the three scenarios. Proponents of deflation cite low consumer price inflation in the U.S., euro area and Japan, as well as very weak money growth in China and the U.S. as being leading indicators of budding deflationary pressures. Advocates of goldilocks - improving growth with low inflation - point to robust global trade and low consumer price inflation, as well as benign financial market dynamics in the form of higher share prices and low bond yields. Last but not least, inflationists can cite very tight labor markets among advanced economies as well as rising core and services consumer price inflation rates in China (Chart I-1). Chart I-1China: Inflation Is Grinding Higher At BCA's annual conference in New York held last week, the broad consensus was that there is a lack of considerable inflationary pressures worldwide amid improving global growth. This is consistent with the goldilocks outcome currently priced by the financial markets - i.e., a combination of robust growth and low inflation. Given the current pricing in financial markets, one economic variable that could disturb benign global financial dynamics is inflation. This report examines inflationary dynamics in China and briefly touches on the U.S. and euro area inflation outlooks. Our take is as follows: Unless China's money and credit growth slow further and generate another deflationary slump in China and world trade, the odds are that the balance both globally and within China will tilt toward inflation in the next 12 months. To be clear, our main theme remains that a material slowdown in China's growth will dampen China/EM growth, derail the EM corporate profit recovery and cap inflationary pressures in China, at least. Therefore, to some extent, this report is counter-factual - it examines what may happen if a meaningful growth deceleration in China does not transpire. Our analysis also addresses the question of what may happen if policymakers in China allow money/credit to accelerate again, without permitting the economy to slow too much. The short response: Inflation is already slowly but surely rising in China and it will soon become a constraint, limiting Chinese policymakers' options. China/Asia Recovery: Prices Or Volumes? China's industrial revival, as well as Asia's export recovery over the past 12-18 months, has largely been due to price increases amid modest volume growth. In particular: China's manufacturing production volume growth has not improved at all, but manufacturing producer prices have surged, producing substantial recovery in nominal output growth (Chart I-2). This is strictly within manufacturing, and does not include mining and ferrous metal production, where output cuts have led to surging prices for raw materials. In brief, one can observe higher inflation beyond the steel and coal industries. Furthermore, producer price inflation has improved for consumer goods (Chart I-3, top panel), and for the first time in 17 years ex-factory producer price deflation has ended in durable consumer goods as well as in electronics goods and communication equipment (Chart I-3, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-2China's Industrial Recovery: Surging ##br##Prices Amid Subdued Volume Growth Chart I-3China: Producer Price ##br##Inflation Is Broad-Based Notably, China's core (ex-food and energy) consumer price inflation has moved above 2%, and consumer services price inflation has risen to 3% (Chart I-1 on page 1). Importantly, these consumer inflation measures have risen, even though food prices are deflating in China and energy prices are stable. This entails that consumer price inflation pressures are genuine and reasonably broad-based. In Asian trade, the dichotomy between prices and volumes is especially apparent in the case of Korea's exports. The U.S. dollar value of Korean exports has mushroomed, but there has been only modest revival in export volumes (Chart I-4). Remarkably, both the 2014-'15 slump and the 2016-'17 recovery in Korean exports were largely due to prices, not volumes. The latter have been expanding modestly in recent years, while prices crashed in 2013-'15 and surged in 2016-'17. Finally, Korean and Taiwanese export prices as well as U.S. import prices from Asia have risen in the past 12-18 months, following years of deflation (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Korean Export Recovery: Prices Versus Volumes Chart I-5Asian Export Prices: A Reversal? Beyond higher prices for steel and other commodities, Korea's export prices are climbing because of skyrocketing DRAM semiconductor prices (Chart I-6). Price changes are much more important to corporate profits than volume changes. For example, a 5% rise in prices boosts corporate profits by much more than a 5% gain in output volume. By the same token, profits decline more when prices drop by 2% than when volumes fall by 2%. We discussed this phenomenon and illustrated an example in our January 28, 2016 report.1 Rising prices across various commodities and manufactured goods have allowed Chinese and Asian companies to deliver strong profits in the past 12 months. China's industrial profits have ballooned, even though output volume growth has been modest. On the whole, the enormous money/credit injection in China in the past two years has hindered lingering price deflation and led to rising prices for various goods and services. Chart I-7 illustrates that the recovery in corporate pricing power and, hence, mushrooming industrial corporate earnings can be attributed to the mainland's credit/money impulses. Chart I-6DRAM Semi Price Has ##br##Surged 4-Fold In Last 12 Months Chart I-7China: A Peak In Producer ##br##Prices And Industrial Profits? If pricing power deteriorates, as the money/credit impulse is signaling, corporate earnings will be at risk. In such a scenario, inflation will not be a problem, as deflationary pressures will resurface. However, corporate profits will shrink. Bottom Line: EM/China corporate profits have expanded predominantly due to price increases. Investors have celebrated it by flocking into EM/Chinese stocks. However, rapid price increases warrant higher interest rates. The latter is a formidable risk to share prices. Barring a material growth deceleration in China, which is our baseline view, odds are that inflation will rise further. Why Now? Inflation is rising in China because of rampant money/credit creation complemented with a weak productivity growth rate. In addition, policymakers have engineered a reversal in raw materials price deflation since early 2016. It is impossible to know if the Chinese economy has reached a point where growth rates of 6-6.5% and above will lead to inflation. It is hard to estimate potential GDP growth rates and output gaps for advanced countries, but it is practically impossible to do so in the case of China. Its economy has undergone multiple dramatic structural transformations in the past 30 years, changes that continue today. That said, it is possible to argue that China may have reached a point where further rampant money and credit creation leads to higher inflation. The key thesis is that productivity growth has slowed because of the following: Channeling credit to SOEs - which often misallocate capital - and to property markets does not boost productivity. Infrastructure projects will take years to produce productivity gains, even if they are well thought out. Chart I-8 illustrates that in recent years an increasing share of investment has been on structures and installations rather than equipment and new technologies. Investment in structures does not boost productivity as much as equipment purchases. Meanwhile, private capital spending has been in the doldrums over the past four years, as has been the case for manufacturing investment (Chart I-9). This argues for less efficiency/productivity and, thereby, diminished potential growth. Chart I-8Unfavorable Mix For Productivity Growth Chart I-9Private And Manufacturing Capex Remain Weak Historically, it was private investment and manufacturing capacity expansion that fostered productivity gains in China. Private projects are often more efficient than public investment, and it is much easier to achieve higher productivity in manufacturing than in the service sector. This is not to argue that there are no innovation and rapid technological changes in China. A lot of innovation and technological advancement is happening but it might not be sufficient to boost productivity growth above 6% (Chart I-10). China's extremely fast productivity gains in the past 20 years have largely been due to rapid expansion of manufacturing and construction. Manufacturing cannot rise fast because it is hard for China to gain more market share in global trade without causing political backslashes. In turn, construction has been driven by excessive credit expansion and property market speculation and policymakers want to reduce this. It is imperative to understand that in any country productivity is much lower in the service sector than in manufacturing and construction. A shift away from manufacturing and construction toward services will surely lead to much lower productivity and, hence, potential economic growth. If policymakers allow/encourage rapid money/credit expansion to achieve growth rates above 6-6.5% or so, the outcome will be inflation. Implications For Chinese Policymakers If economic growth does not slow, odds are that inflation will continue to rise in China due to a lower potential GDP growth rate. As such, policymakers will have to tackle inflation by raising interest rates. The deposit rate in China is at 1.5%, and is presently negative when deflated by core consumer price inflation (Chart I-11). This is occurring for the first time in ten years. Chart I-10Potential Growth = Labor Force + ##br##Productivity Growth Chart I-11China: Deposit Rate In ##br##Real Terms Is Negative If inflationary pressures continue building up and policymakers do not hike interest rates, households will become even more dissatisfied by negative deposit rates and opt for converting their RMB deposits into foreign currency, or buying real estate. Both scenarios will eventually lead to financial instability, which policymakers are trying to avoid. Chart I-12 demonstrates that the current level of foreign exchange reserves of US$ 3.3 trillion is equal to only 34% of household deposits and 15% of total (corporate and household) deposits, and 10% of our broad M3 money measure. In brief, the failure to proactively hike deposit rates will likely lead to capital flight. Policymakers realize that the Chinese banking system has created so much money that even the sheer size of foreign currency reserves is insufficient to defend the currency if and when households and companies choose to convert their liquid savings into foreign currency. This argues for higher interest rates in China, unless growth downshifts very soon and caps inflation. Bottom Line: Either China's growth will slump soon, capping budding inflationary pressures, or policymakers will have to hike interest rates meaningfully to avoid another run on the exchange rate. What About DM And Non-Asian EM? In the majority of non-Asian EM economies, inflation is either muted or under control. The exceptions are Turkey and central European economies. We have discussed the inflation outbreak in central Europe in detail in past reports (also see Chart I-13 below), and will be revisiting Turkey next week.2 Chart I-12Too Much Money Has Been Created Chart I-13Inflation Outbreak In Central Europe The basis is that there has been little recovery in Latin American economies as well as Russia and South Africa for inflationary pressures to transpire. While some may be prone to structural inflation, cyclical business conditions are still too weak to warrant rising pricing power. In the Euro Area, investors should closely monitor German wage dynamics. Manufacturing wages and core consumer price inflation in central Europe are ramping up (Chart I-13). If and when labor shortages and rising wages in central Europe discourage German manufacturing companies from relocating/outsourcing production to the former, it will put more pressure on the already very tight German labor market and will lead to higher wages. As a result, genuine inflation in the largest European economy will heighten. In the U.S., the tight labor market and vibrant growth argue for higher inflation ahead. The Trump administration's proposed tax cuts amid robust growth will boost demand and rekindle inflation. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations are very depressed worldwide, and it will not take much in the way of upward inflation surprises to re-price interest rate expectations and, consequently, financial assets. Financial Markets Ramifications The Foreign Exchange Market: The U.S. dollar has probably made a major bottom and will stage a multi-month rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Will The Greenback Find ##br##Support At Current Levels? The Federal Reserve will be the first central bank to hike interest rates if global inflation or inflation expectations rise. In turn, the European Central Bank and the People's Bank of China will likely move slower in tightening policy. Such a proactive policy stance of the Fed, especially relative to its peers, will benefit the greenback. Furthermore, the potential appointment of Kevin Warsh as Fed Chairman could lead to higher interest rate expectations in the U.S., and will be currency bullish. In short, the potential mix of tight monetary policies and easy fiscal policies is bullish for the dollar. In the interim, U.S. bond yields are likely to move higher. This is true in the near term, even if Chinese growth disappoints. It will take time until China's growth deceleration caps the upside in U.S./global bond yields. Consistent with our U.S. dollar view, we believe commodities prices have reached a major peak. In sum, the path of least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up. Stay long the U.S. dollar versus a basket of EM currencies: ZAR, TRY, MYR, IDR, BRL and CLP. Local Currency Bonds: As and when EM currencies depreciate versus the greenback and U.S. bond yields grind higher, EM high-yielding local currency bonds could sell off. Chart I-15 reveals that the spread between the EM-GBI local currency benchmark yield and five-year U.S. Treasurys has fallen to a 10-year low. The risk-reward is not attractive for U.S. dollar- and euro-based investors. EM credit versus U.S. investment grade bonds. On August 16, 2017, we advised shifting our underweight EM sovereign bonds recommendation away from U.S. high yield to U.S. investment grade corporate credit. This strategy remains intact. This is consistent with EM currencies depreciating versus the U.S. dollar, U.S. bond yields moving higher and commodities prices softening. Continue underweighting EM stocks versus DM: A stronger U.S. dollar and rising U.S. bond yields will reverse EM equities' relative outperformance versus DM. In fact, manufacturing PMIs certify that EM manufacturing growth remains subdued relative to DM (Chart I-16). Chart I-15EM Local Currency Bonds: Little Yield Advantage Chart I-16EM Equities Versus DM: A Sign Of Reversal? If this coincides with inflation or growth concerns in China, it will create a perfect storm for all EM risk assets. As to EM stocks' absolute performance, we are approaching a major top, even though the exact timing of a major relapse is uncertain. Flows into EM equities remain robust, but they will reverse if one or more of the following transpires: rising U.S. interest rate expectations, a stronger U.S. dollar, high and rising inflation in China and policy tightening, or the opposite - an imminent growth slump in China and a relapse in commodities prices. All in all, the EM equity rally momentum remains strong but the risk-reward is quite unfavorable. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Peru: External Backdrop Holds The Key The external environment has been and will remain key to the performance of Peruvian financial markets. The Peruvian bourse has rallied massively, outperforming the EM equity benchmark over the past year, even as domestic demand in Peru has been weakening. Despite stronger global growth and higher commodities prices, GDP growth along with consumer and capital growth have not recovered at all (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, bank loan growth remains very weak (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Peru: Weak Domestic Demand... Chart II-2...Corroborated By Weak Credit Growth If metals prices stay firm and strong capital flows in EM persist, Peru's currency will remain under appreciation pressure. This will provide the central bank with more room to ease policy by cutting interest rates and adding liquidity to the banking system as it accumulates foreign exchange reserves (Chart II-3). Continued policy easing by the central bank will in turn revive bank loan growth, and the economy will recover. Chart II-3FX Reserve Accumulation = Liquidity Easing Our baseline scenario, however, is that industrial metals prices in general and copper prices in particular will relapse materially in the next 12 months. Furthermore, odds are that U.S. bond yields will drift higher and the U.S. dollar will strengthen (as discussed on pages 11-12). Under such a scenario: The Peruvian sol would come under depreciation pressure if and when metals prices relapse (Chart II-4). With precious and industrial metals representing 60% of total exports, a drop in metals prices will lead to considerable deterioration in Peru's trade balance and FDI inflows will slump. The central bank is committed to maintaining a stable exchange rate due to high foreigner ownership of government local currency bonds and a still-partially dollarized economy. Hence, if the currency comes under attack, the central bank will defend the sol by selling its international reserves, which will deplete local currency liquidity (Chart II-3). Consequently, local rates will rise and banks will curtail bank loan growth, which in turn will preclude any recovery in domestic demand. Overall, the external environment and its impact on the exchange rate holds the key for a domestic-led recovery. A relapse in industrial metals and copper prices and ensuing depreciation pressure on the currency will undo the recent loosening in monetary policy and stall a potential domestic demand recovery. In terms of financial markets strategy, we recommend the following: Despite domestic demand weakness, the Peruvian equity market has been on a tear, led by banking and mining stocks. Given our negative view on industrial metals and copper prices, we recommend staying underweight Peruvian equities relative to the EM benchmark (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Terms Of Trade Dictate The Currency Chart II-5Has Peru's Relative Equity Performance Peaked? With respect to our absolute call on bank stocks and our relative trade versus Colombian banks, we recommend closing both trades with large losses. Finally, we recommend being long Peru credit relative to Brazilian sovereign credit. Public debt burden is much lower in Peru (24% of GDP) than in Brazil (74% of GDP). Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Corporate Profits: Recession Is Bad, Deflation Is Worse," dated January 28, 2016, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Central Europe: Beware Of An Inflation Outbreak," dated June 21, 2017, and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, dated September 6, 2017; pages 15-18; links are available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

Dear Client, This is our last report of the year. We will be back the first week of January with our 2017 Strategy Outlook. On behalf of BCA's Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all the best for the coming year. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights The global economy has entered a reflationary window, where deflation risks are receding, but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. Europe and Japan, two regions where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates and whose stock markets tend to have a cyclical tilt, are the most likely to benefit. Emerging markets should also gain from a more reflationary environment. However, a rising dollar and elevated debt levels will take the bloom off the rose. Chronically low productivity and labor force growth will make it difficult for central banks to contain inflation once it does begin to accelerate. Global bond yields will rise only modestly next year, but could begin to surge as the decade wears on. Feature Stagflation Is Coming, But Not Yet Bill Gates once noted that "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." This observation applies just as well to the risk of stagflation as it does to technology. For the next few years, the likelihood of a disorderly rise in inflation is extremely low. Beyond then, however, the risk is that inflation surprises to the upside, perhaps significantly so. Three factors will prevent global inflation from rising too rapidly over the next two-to-three years: The global economy still suffers from a fair amount of spare capacity; While spare capacity is likely to decline further, it will do so only gradually; Even when all remaining spare capacity is exhausted, the knock-on effect to inflation will initially be quite small. Spare Capacity Lingers Chart 1 shows that the global output gap has declined from its high in 2009, but is still larger than it has been at any time since the early 1990s. This can be seen in low industrial capacity utilization rates in some countries (Chart 2), as well as in the high levels of joblessness and involuntary part-time employment (Charts 3 and 4). Chart 1Mind The (Output) Gap Chart 2Global Capacity Utilization Remains Low Chart 3AJoblessness Still Elevated In Europe Chart 3BJoblessness Still Elevated In Europe Chart 4AHigher Incidence Of Involuntary ##br##Part-Time Employment Chart 4BHigher Incidence Of Involuntary ##br##Part-Time Employment Granted, the U.S. is much closer to full employment than most other economies. However, high levels of spare capacity abroad will still exert downward pressure on U.S. inflation. The reason for this was first laid out by Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming in the early 1970s. The Mundell-Fleming model, as it is now called, posits that a country's interest rate will rise in response to stronger growth, thereby pushing up the value of its currency. Indeed, Mundell and Fleming showed that easier fiscal policy would not benefit a small open economy at all in a world of perfect capital mobility and flexible exchange rates because any gains from the stimulus would be entirely offset by a deterioration in the trade balance. Chart 5Real Rate Differentials ##br##Are Driving Up The Dollar While the Mundell-Fleming model is a gross oversimplification of how the global economy actually functions, it is still highly relevant for understanding today's macro environment. The real broad trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 21% since mid-2014, largely due to the widening of interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 5). We estimate that the stronger dollar has reduced the level of U.S. real GDP by 1% so far, and will reduce it by another 0.5% stemming from the lagged effects from the recent dollar rally. The buoyant greenback will keep a lid on U.S. inflation both directly, in the form of lower import prices and indirectly, in the form of slower employment growth. The analysis above leads to three important investment implications. First, it implies that the dollar will remain well bid as long as the Fed remains the only major central bank in hiking mode. We have been long the DXY since October 2014 - a trade that has gained 18.6%. We think there is another 5% of upside from current levels. Second, a stronger dollar will help redistribute growth to Europe and Japan, two economies that desperately need it. We are bullish on European and Japanese stocks and bearish on the euro and the yen. Third, Treasury yields will be hard-pressed to rise substantially from current levels until spare capacity outside the U.S. is extinguished. Only once other central banks start raising rates will the Fed be able to hike rates in a sustainable manner. Until then, any Fed tightening beyond what the market is currently expecting will put upward pressure on the dollar, reducing the need for further hikes. A Gradual Recovery Table 1Global Growth Will Improve Next Year Global growth should pick up next year in line with the IMF's most recent projections (Table 1). Alongside stronger growth in Japan and continued above-trend growth in Europe, the U.S. economy will benefit from robust consumer spending on the back of rising real wages. In addition, residential investment should rise, as foreshadowed by the jump in homebuilder confidence in December. Tighter credit spreads, deregulation, and a modest recovery in energy sector investment should also boost business capex. Despite this welcome reflationary backdrop, a number of factors will hold back growth. Most prominently, debt levels are still high around the world (Chart 6). In fact, emerging market debt continues to rise more quickly than GDP. Even in the optimistic scenario where the ratio of EM debt-to-GDP merely stabilizes, this would still entail a negative credit impulse (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Debt Levels Are Still High Chart 7Negative EM Credit Impulse Looming Meanwhile, monetary policy continues to be constrained by the zero bound in a number of developed economies. Many EM central banks will also be reluctant to cut interest rates due to fears that this could precipitate a disorderly plunge in their currencies. And while fiscal policy around the world will no longer be restrictive, a major burst of government stimulus is not in the cards. Donald Trump's fiscal package may not boost aggregate demand by as much as the more optimistic estimates suggest. As we have noted before, most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance. There simply are not enough marquee "shovel-ready" projects around that can make use of the public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions. There is also a significant risk that Congressional Republicans will try to sneak through cuts to Social Security and Medicare, much to the annoyance of many of Trump's voters. As for Trump's proposed personal tax cuts, while they are hefty in size, their bang for the buck is likely to be modest, given that the benefits are tilted towards higher income groups that tend to save much of their earnings. Indeed, it is possible that cutting the estate tax would actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Likewise, corporate tax cuts will have only an incremental effect on business capex, given that companies are already flush with cash and effective tax rates are well below statutory levels. The bottom line is that global growth is likely to rise in 2017, but not by enough to cause inflation to surge. A Flat Phillips Curve ... For Now Chart 8The Phillips Curve Has Flattened It might take a few more years for most of the developed world to claw its way back to something approximating full employment, but with any luck, it will get there. What happens to inflation then? The answer is probably not much. The relationship between economic slack and inflation is encapsulated by the so-called Phillips curve. As one would intuitively expect, inflation tends to rise when slack diminishes. However, this correlation has weakened over the past few decades (Chart 8). For example, U.S. core inflation declined only modestly during the Great Recession, and has been slow to bounce back, even as the output gap has shrunk. Economists have proposed a variety of reasons for why the Phillips curve may have flattened out over time. Globalization is often cited as one factor, but the empirical evidence for this view is rather shaky.1 True, free trade and capital mobility have helped keep inflation in check by diverting excess domestic demand into higher net imports via the Mundell-Fleming channel discussed above. However, this only implies that globalization may prevent economies from sliding too far along the Phillips curve. It says nothing about the slope of the curve itself. A fall in unionization rates and a decline in the use of inflation-indexed wage contracts are also often cited as reasons for why the correlation between inflation and economic slack has diminished. Here again, the evidence is rather mixed. While the U.S. has experienced a pronounced decline in unionization rates, Canada has not (Chart 9). Nevertheless, the sensitivity of inflation to economic fluctuations has fallen in both countries by roughly the same magnitude. Likewise, the increased use of inflation-index contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a response to rising inflation, rather than a cause of it (Chart 10). The one point on which most economists agree is that long-term inflation expectations are much more stable now than they used to be, which has reduced the volatility of actual inflation. Central banks deserve some of the credit for this. The adoption of inflation targeting, coupled with more transparent communication policies, has helped anchor inflation expectations. A more sober assessment of economic conditions has also been a plus. Back in the 1970s, the Fed continuously overstated the degree of economic slack (Chart 11). This led it to keep interest rates too low for too long, thereby sowing the seeds for much higher inflation later on. Chart 9Inflation Fell In Canada, ##br##Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 10When High Inflation ##br##Entailed Inflation-Indexed Contracts Chart 11The Fed Continuously Overstated ##br##The Magnitude Of Economic Slack Shifting Sands For Inflation The Fed has vowed not to make the same mistake again, but the temptation to exploit the flatness of the Phillips curve may be too great to resist. A flattish Phillips curve implies a low "sacrifice ratio." This means that the Fed could let the economy overheat without putting undue upward pressure on inflation. While the Fed would have reservations about pursuing such a strategy, Janet Yellen's musings about running a "high-pressure economy" suggest that it is at least willing to entertain the idea. The 25-year period of falling inflation that began in the early 1980s had a dark side. As Hyman Minsky first noted, economic stability can beget instability: The so-called "Great Moderation" that policymakers were patting themselves on the back for before the financial crisis created a fertile milieu for rising debt levels. Excessively high debt levels are deflationary at the outset because they limit the ability of overstretched borrowers to spend. However, high debt levels also reduce investment in new capacity - homes, office buildings, machinery, etc. This undermines the supply-side of the economy. Once the output gap is closed, high debt levels can become inflationary by increasing the incentive for central banks to keep rates low in order to suppress interest-servicing costs and reduce real debt burdens. The challenges posed by the zero-bound constraint could also justify efforts to raise inflation targets. After all, if inflation were higher, this would give central banks the ability to push down real rates further into negative territory in the event of an economic downturn. Such a step is unlikely to be taken anytime soon. That said, given that a number of well-regarded economists - including prominent policymakers such as Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the IMF, San Francisco Fed President John Williams, and former Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota - have floated the idea of raising the inflation target, long-term investors should be open-minded about the possibility. In any event, as we discussed in great detail last week, underlying economic trends - ranging from the retreat from globalization to the slowdown in potential GDP growth - are all pushing the global economy in a more inflationary direction.2 This suggests that inflation could move appreciably higher towards the end of this decade. Investment Conclusions Chart 12Near-Term Inflation Risk Is Low Inflation is unlikely to rise significantly over the next few years. Indeed, the sharp appreciation in the dollar since the election will put downward pressure on U.S. inflation in the coming months. This view is supported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Price Pressure gauge, which shows that there is less than an 8% chance that inflation will rise above 2.5% over the next 12 months (Chart 12). And even when the economy has reached full employment and the effects of a stronger dollar have washed through the system, inflation will be slow to increase. Consider how inflation evolved during the 1960s. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, U.S. inflation did not reach 4% until mid-1968. By that time, the output gap had been positive for five years, hitting a whopping 6% of GDP in 1966 on the back of rising military expenditures on the Vietnam War and social spending on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs (Chart 13).3 The lesson is that it often takes a number of years for an overheated economy to generate meaningful inflation. This suggests that the global economy is entering a "goldilocks" reflationary window, where deflation risks are receding, but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. This is obviously good news for global risk assets, and underpins our cyclically constructive view on global equities. Europe and Japan, two regions where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates and whose stock markets tend to have a cyclical tilt, are the most likely to benefit. In fact, both economies have seen a decline in real yields since the U.S. elections, as rising inflation expectations have outpaced the increase in nominal yields (Chart 14). Emerging markets should also gain from a more reflationary environment, but a rising dollar and elevated debt levels will take the bloom off the rose. Chart 13It Can Take A While For Inflation ##br##To Rise In Response To An Overheated Economy Chart 14Europe And Japan: Rising Inflation ##br##Expectations Suppressing Real Yields While we have a positive cyclical (3-to-24 month) view on risk assets, we have significant concerns about both the near-term and longer-term outlooks. From a short-term tactical perspective, developed market equities - especially U.S. equities - are highly vulnerable to a correction. This is reflected in our sentiment indices, which have moved firmly into overbought territory (Chart 15). It can also be seen in the weak historic performance of global stocks following sharp spikes in bond yields (Table 2). Chart 15U.S. Equity Sentiment Is Stretched Table 2Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Over a longer-term horizon, the risks to global equities are also to the downside. Once inflation is on a firm upward trajectory, central banks may find it more difficult to arrest the trend. Against the backdrop of weak productivity and labor force growth, memories of stagflation may reappear. As Chart 16 shows, stagflation in the 1970s was devastating for equities, and this time may not be any different. The bottom line is that investors should lease the bull market in stocks, rather than own it. Chart 16Stagflation Was Devastating For Stocks From The Vault: Two "Big Picture" Holiday Reports Lastly, for those who would like to take their minds off the nitty-gritty of the financial world for the next two weeks and focus more on transcendent issues, let me recommend two special reports. The first, entitled A Smarter World is based on a speech I delivered at the 2014 BCA New York Investment Conference. I argue that genetic changes in the human population sowed the seeds for the Industrial Revolution. This development then unleashed a virtuous cycle where rising living standards led to better health and educational outcomes, generating even further gains in living standards. Many countries now appear to be at the end of this cycle, but new technologies could one day generate huge gains in IQs, sending humanity down a path towards immortality. Of course, before we get there, we have to contend with all sorts of existential pitfalls. With that in mind, the second report, Doomsday Risk, examines what is literally a life-and-death issue: the likelihood of human extinction. Drawing on insights from biology, history, cosmology, and probability theory, our analysis yields a number of surprising investment implications. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Eddie Gerba and Corrado Macchiarelli, "Is Globalization Reducing The Ability Of Central Banks To Control Inflation?" European Parliament, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, Brussels, Belgium (2015); Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, "Some Simple Tests Of The Globalization And Inflation Hypothesis," International Finance Vol. 13, no. 3 (2010): pp. 343-375; and Laurence M. Ball, "Has Globalization Changed Inflation?" NBER Working Paper No. 12687 (2006). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Main Street Bonds, Wall Street Stocks," dated December 16, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits," dated December 16, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades