Monetary

Highlights Duration: The market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Neutral Rate: Our indicators of the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate are sending conflicting signals. The economic data suggest that the neutral rate might be above 3%, but this is contradicted by weakness in the price of gold. TIPS: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Feature In February we published a report that outlined how we expect the cyclical bear market in bonds to evolve. Essentially, we view the bear market as consisting of two stages.1 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations and the second stage deals with determining the neutral (or equilibrium) federal funds rate. In this week's report we track how the two-stage Treasury bear market has progressed since February and consider the implications for portfolio strategy. The First Stage Is Nearly Complete Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are slightly higher than when we published our February report, but they are still not at levels we would consider "well anchored". We showed in our February report that prior periods when core inflation was close to the Fed's 2% target coincided with both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.10% and the 5-year/5-year forward is 2.19%. As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% target range, nominal Treasury yields have further cyclical upside due to the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This re-anchoring will play out as the core inflation data are released and investors come to realize that inflation is no longer consistently undershooting the Fed's target. When that re-anchoring occurs and both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakevens cross above 2.3%, the first stage of the bond bear market will be complete. One recent development is that TIPS breakevens have risen even as commodity prices have declined (Chart 1). In fact, while breakevens are somewhat higher than when we published our February report, commodity prices - as measured by the CRB Raw Industrials index - are lower. While this shift in correlation is so far only tentative, it could signal that TIPS investors are increasingly influenced by the actual core inflation data and not swings in the global growth outlook. We would not be surprised to see this correlation continue to weaken going forward, especially considering that core inflation looks more and more consistent with the Fed's 2% target. Core CPI for July came in at 2.33% on both a trailing 12-month and 3-month basis, annualized (Chart 2). This is more or less consistent with the pre-crisis period when the Fed's preferred PCE inflation measure was close to the 2% target. Alternative measures of CPI send a similar message (Chart 2, panel 2) and our diffusion index shows that more individual items have accelerated in price than have decelerated in each of the past three months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Taken together, the signals point to further near-term price acceleration. Chart 1Inflation Date Sinking In Chart 2Inflation Picking Up Steam Digging deeper, we see that the outlook for higher inflation pervades each of the main components of core CPI (Chart 3). The reading from our shelter inflation model has stabilized, core goods inflation continues to track non-oil import prices higher, and the rebound in core services inflation is consistent with rising wage growth. Eventually, we would expect the strengthening dollar to exert a drag on import prices (Chart 4), but it will be some time before this is reflected in the CPI data. Another important development is that, after appearing to have turned a corner in 2016, the residential vacancy rate has dipped back down (Chart 4, bottom panel). Such a low vacancy rate will continue to support strong shelter inflation. Chart 3The Components Of Core CPI Chart 4A Headwind And A Tailwind For Inflation Bottom Line: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Nominal Treasury yields have further upside at least until both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We also continue to recommend an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities. We will remove this recommendation when breakeven rates reach our target range and stage one of the bond bear market is complete. Stage 2 Update: Conflicting Evidence On The Neutral Rate Once inflation expectations are well-anchored at levels consistent with the Fed's target, the cyclical bond bear market will transition into its second stage. How much further Treasury yields rise during this stage will depend on how high the Fed is able to lift interest rates before the economy starts to slow. In other words, the cyclical peak in Treasury yields will be determined by the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate - the level of interest rates where monetary policy is neither accommodative nor restrictive, and which is also consistent with stable inflation near the Fed's 2% target. Unfortunately, the neutral rate can only be known with certainty in hindsight. But in a recent report we presented three factors that investors can track in real time that have forewarned of the shift from accommodative to restrictive monetary policy in the past.2 We review the recent trends in each of these signals below. Signal 1: Nominal GDP Growth Vs The Fed Funds Rate Chart 5The Message From Nominal GDP Growth A fed funds rate that is above the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP is typically a signal (though often a lagging one) that monetary policy has turned restrictive (Chart 5). An intuition that is confirmed by the fact that the spread between nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate correlates positively with the slope of the yield curve. But while the flattening yield curve has caused some to worry that the Fed is tightening too quickly, the message from nominal GDP growth is that monetary policy is actually becoming more accommodative (Chart 5, bottom panel). If the Fed continues to lift rates at its current pace of 25 basis points per quarter, the fed funds rate will be between 3.25% and 3.5% by the end of 2019. Nominal GDP would have to decelerate fairly substantially from its current 5.4% growth rate to signal restrictive monetary policy by then. Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Another indicator that has historically coincided with restrictive monetary policy and the cyclical peak in bond yields is when growth in the most interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy (aka the cyclical sectors) slows as a proportion of overall growth (Chart 6). This is especially true for consumer spending on durable goods. Not only is it well below pre-crisis levels as a percent of GDP, but recent data revisions revealed that the personal savings rate is much higher than previously thought. The savings rate looks especially elevated relative to household wealth, which leaves room for spending to accelerate as it falls to more normal levels (Chart 7). Extremely high consumer confidence supports the view that the savings rate will decline (Chart 7, panel 2), and despite recent increases in interest rates and the price of gasoline, consumer spending on essentials is not yet excessive relative to income (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Chart 7The Outlook For Consumer Spending Cyclical spending - which includes consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment in equipment & software - is currently rising only slowly as a proportion of GDP, but it remains well below average historical levels. This suggests that further catch-up is likely. Much like consumer spending, residential investment also has a lot of room to play catch-up relative to pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). However, growth in residential investment has waned in recent months (Chart 8). The slowdown is likely the result of the housing market coming to grips with higher mortgage rates. But while higher rates have definitely impaired affordability, housing remains quite cheap compared to history (Chart 8, panel 2). A further support for housing is that homebuilders are extraordinarily confident in the outlook (Chart 8, panel 3). This is for good reason. The outstanding housing supply is historically low and continues to contract relative to demand as increases in building permits fail to keep pace with household formation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Unlike consumer spending on durables and residential investment, nonresidential investment in equipment & software is roughly consistent with its average historical level as a proportion of GDP (Chart 6, bottom panel). But so far leading indicators are not pointing to a slowdown. On the contrary, surveys of new orders, capital expenditure plans and CEO confidence suggest that investment growth will stay strong for the next few quarters (Chart 9). At some point, given its higher level relative to GDP, investment could be the cyclical sector that first shows some evidence of weakness. But so far this is not the case. Chart 8The Outlook For Residential Investment Chart 9The Outlook For Non-Residential Investment Signal 3: Gold Chart 10Signal 3: Gold The final signal of restrictive monetary policy we consider is the price of gold. The widely accepted perception of gold as a long-run store of value makes it the ideal "anti-central bank" asset. In other words, gold tends to perform well when monetary policy is perceived to be turning more accommodative relative to its neutral level, and it tends to sell off when policy is perceived to be turning restrictive. Gold is also a useful addition to our suite of indicators because it is a price that is set in financial markets. Compared to our other two indicators which are based on economic data, financial market indicators can provide more of a leading signal. The trade-off, however, is that false signals are far more frequent. Most interestingly, we observe that fluctuations in the price of gold have preceded revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral fed funds rate in the post-crisis period (Chart 10). This seems entirely logical. The falling gold price in 2014/15 suggested that the market viewed Fed policy as becoming increasingly restrictive, but market expectations for the near-term path of rate hikes were roughly flat during this period (Chart 10, bottom panel). The only explanation is that investors were revising down their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate during this time, resulting in a de-facto policy tightening. Similarly, around the same time that gold put in a bottom in early 2016, neutral rate estimates from both investors and the Fed started to level-off around the 3% level, where they remain today. Going forward, the implication is that if gold were to break out of its trading range to the upside, it would send a strong signal that the Fed is perceived to be falling behind the curve. Such a price movement would make upward revisions to the neutral fed funds rate, and a higher cyclical peak in Treasury yields, more likely. Conversely, if gold continues its recent slide, it could signal that policy is turning restrictive more quickly than many expect. Bottom Line: Trends in our neutral rate indicators since February are sending conflicting signals. The economic data - nominal GDP growth and cyclical spending - have improved and suggest that we should think about a neutral fed funds rate above the current market consensus of 3%. On the other hand, the weakness in the price of gold suggests that investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly restrictive. Investment Strategy How best to square these conflicting signals when formulating a portfolio strategy? For the time being we strongly advise investors to maintain below-benchmark duration on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. For one thing, the bond bear market remains in its first stage and the market is still not fully convinced that inflation will re-anchor itself around the Fed's 2% target. This alone argues for maintaining below-benchmark duration and an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, at least until long-dated TIPS breakevens reach our target range. Beyond that, while the true neutral fed funds rate remains uncertain, the market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace, and is consistent with a neutral rate that is well below 3% (Chart 11). Chart 11The Market Not Buying Into The Fed's Current Rate Hike Pace In other words, current market pricing tilts the risk/reward trade-off firmly in favor of below-benchmark duration, but we will keep a close eye on our neutral rate signals in the coming quarters to see if a more consistent message emerges. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights If the U.S. Treasury intervenes to push the greenback lower, it would only have a temporary impact. Ultimately, interventions work if they are matched with easy monetary policy. However, U.S. monetary policy will only be tightened going forward. Because inflation expectations have stabilized since the late-1980s, the dollar can influence the slope of the Phillips Curve. However, the combination of a tight labor market and untimely fiscal stimulus is likely to cause a sharp steepening of the Phillips Curve, with lower unemployment and higher inflation. Unlike in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but as in the mid-1980s, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to abide by these inflationary pressures. Thus, if the Phillips Curve steepens significantly, the Fed is likely to end up raising rates much more aggressively than what is currently priced in, in turn leading to a much stronger dollar. Feature In recent days we have heard speculation that U.S. President Donald Trump may be considering ordering the U.S. Treasury to sell dollars, in order to limit the greenback's strength. We have no preconception of whether this is indeed likely to happen or not, but the mere discussion of this risk forces us to ask questions regarding our view that the dollar can keep rallying in 2018. We think that this kind of policy, if implemented, could have a short-lived negative impact on the dollar, but that ultimately the path for the dollar will be conditional on the path taken by the Fed and global growth, not President Trump's whims. As such, we remain firmly focused on charting the most likely path for these two factors, and currently they continue to favor the USD. As a result, we recommend investors either buy into any corrective action in the dollar in the coming weeks, or, hedge them away. It is not the time to abandon our view that the dollar will end 2018 above current levels. Trump Vs The Trinity One of the bedrocks of international economics is called the Impossible Trinity. It is the simple idea that a country has to make a choice. A nation cannot target the level of its exchange rate and have an independent monetary policy while also having an open capital account. A country can pick two of these nodes at any point in time, but not all three simultaneously (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The Impossible Trinity Essentially, if Country A has an open capital account and decides to fix its exchange rate with Country B, it needs to follow a very similar monetary policy that the nation it is pegging its currency against follows. If risk-adjusted interest rates in Country A are lower than those in Country B, money will leave country A, creating downward pressures on its FX reserves, and ultimately forcing a downward adjustment in the exchange rate. The exact opposite will happen if Country A's risk-adjusted interest rates rise above those prevailing in Country B. As a result, if Country A wants to peg its currency to Country B and maintain monetary policy that is independent of that conducted in Country B, Country A has to close its capital account. Or, as was the case when the world was under the gold standard, if Country A wants to maintain an open capital account and still have a pegged currency, then it has to relinquish control over its monetary policy. Finally, countries can also follow the strategy currently in place across most advanced economies, and have both an open capital account and an independent monetary policy, but relinquish control over their exchange rate. Since the U.S. capital account is open, the idea that President Trump could target a lower USD by forcing the Treasury to sell greenbacks in the open market ultimately flies in the face of this impossible trinity, as long as the Fed maintains its independence.1 This last clause is crucial. For example, the Japanese Ministry of Finance conducted successful interventions between 1999 and 2000, when it managed to limit upside in the yen. However, the yen only really weakened once the Bank of Japan joined the game, as it was making sure that Japanese interest rates were falling relative to the U.S. (Chart I-2). The same occurred in 1985 around the Plaza Accord. From August 1984 to August 1986, the effective fed funds rate was declining, which buttressed the U.S. Treasury's verbal efforts of seeing a lower dollar (Chart I-3). Coordination with the rest of the G7 also helped. Chart I-2MoF Interventions Worked, Once Japanese##br## Rates Fell Vs. The U.S. Chart I-3The Plaza Accord Worked Because The##br## Fed Moved In The Same Direction This means that for interventions to have any durable impact on the U.S. dollar, the Fed needs to be easing monetary policy relative to the rest of the world as well. Otherwise, any decline in the dollar caused by interventions is likely to prove transitory as the higher interest rates offered by the U.S. will likely result in inflows into the dollar. Thus, the outlook for the Fed still holds primacy. On this front, the future does not look good for President Trump's desire to see a weaker dollar. Bottom Line: Because the U.S. has an independent monetary policy and an open capital account, the U.S. Treasury cannot unilaterally target a lower exchange rate. It needs the help of either foreign nations or a compliant Fed that eases policy. Right now, foreign nations have little incentive to follow the example of the 1985 Plaza Accord, and the U.S. economic backdrop points toward higher U.S. interest rates, not lower ones. Thus, any negative impact on the dollar from open market operations by the U.S. Treasury should have a limited lifespan. A Filip From The Phillips Curve? If the Treasury selling dollars can only drag the greenback lower on a durable basis only as long as the Fed eases policy as well, the Fed remains a much more important factor in determining the dollar's outlook. At the center of the Fed's reaction function lies a concept called the Phillips Curve, which normally shows a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. Logically, we would anticipate that the more strongly inflation and the unemployment rate move in opposite directions, the stronger the link with the dollar should be. If inflation surges in response to small declines in unemployment rates, this forces the Fed to respond with greater assertiveness to capacity pressures. As a result, this should lift the dollar higher. If unemployment increases and inflation plunges, the Fed eases and the dollar weakens. However, the reality is very different. As Chart I-4 illustrates, the relationship between the slope of the Phillips Curve and the dollar evolves over time. When inflation expectations were unanchored to the upside, as was the case in the 1970s, the Phillips Curve became inverted - i.e. a rising unemployment rate was associated with rising inflation. Inflation was in the driver's seat. In this environment, the higher inflation and the unemployment rate got, the weaker the dollar became. The Fed was in a bind and remained behind the curve. Consequently, real rates kept falling and the dollar suffered. Chart I-4The Strange Dance Of The Phillips Curve And The Dollar After 1981 something interesting happened. The Phillips Curve moved back to its normal slope - i.e. negative. During that period, the dollar rallied. The slope of the Phillips Curve normalized because then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker drove up interest rates so high that inflation expectations collapsed, and ex-ante real rates rebounded as a result. This lifted the dollar. Since the second half of the 1980s, something even stranger has been happening. The dollar now moves upward when the Phillips Curve flattens or becomes inverted. The dollar also depreciates when the Phillips curve normalizes. In other words, the dollar today appreciates when the inflation rate and the unemployment rate move in unison, not in opposition. This is strange; very strange. However, this relationship can be understood if we flip the causation around. Essentially, the dollar may be driving the slope of the Phillips Curve. We have long argued that a strong dollar is not very negative for the U.S. economy, but it remains very negative for inflation.2 This can be seen in Chart I-5, which highlights that a strong dollar is associated with a falling unemployment rate, but also falling inflation. When the dollar is strengthening, it supports consumption as the price of imported goods decreases, increasing the purchasing power of households (Chart I-6). Since household consumption accounts for roughly 70% of GDP, what is good for households ends up being good for U.S. growth. However, a strong dollar dampens inflation by curtailing the price of imported goods, by weighing on the price of commodities, and by tightening EM financial conditions, which decreases EM demand and therefore further undermines global prices. This means that a strong dollar is associated with both a lower unemployment rate and lower inflationary pressures, thus a positively sloped Phillips Curve. These dynamics might explain why this cycle, the Fed has faced very limited inflationary pressures, despite facing an unemployment rate well below equilibrium: The dollar was very strong from 2014 to late 2016, and inflation fell as the unemployment rate also declined. Chart I-5A Strong Dollar Is Neutral For The##br## Unemployment Rate But Deflationary Chart I-6A Strong Dollar ##br##Helps Households How is this situation likely to evolve going forward? Will the dollar remain the likely driver of the Phillips Curve, or will the Phillips Curve drive the dollar? We opine that the Phillips Curve is likely to once again become the leading partner in this tango. This could help the dollar. Essentially, today's environment is unlike anything we have seen since the current relationship between the dollar and the Phillips Curve emerged in the second half of the 1980s. Not only is the economy at full employment, but also the U.S. government is engaging in massively expansionary fiscal policy. The obvious parallel is with the late 1960s. Back then, the unemployment rate was low, hitting 3.4% in 1969, yet in response to the Vietnam War and former President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, the U.S. budget deficit blew up. This generated the kind of excess demand that culminated in high inflation, and down the road, an unmooring of inflation expectations to the upside. This unmooring was crucial in causing the abnormal Phillips Curve slope discussed earlier, and the collapse in the dollar. This policy sowed the seeds of stagflation. However, forgotten in that parallel is the Fed's behavior at the time. As we highlighted two weeks ago, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Fed was much more focused on keeping the U.S. at full employment than it was focused on combatting inflation (Chart I-7). The Fed maintained too easy monetary policy, letting the U.S. economy become a pressure cooker.3 After 1977 and the Federal Reserve Reform act, inflation fighting became an official component of the Fed's mandate - one that took preeminence once Paul Volcker took the helm of the central bank. We are still in this regime. Chart I-7Trump's Fed Is Not Nixon's Fed As a result, while the current environment has echoes of the late 1960s, it also resonates with the first half of the 1980s, because the Fed is now more focused on inflation than it was in the 1960s. In the first half of the 1980s, Volcker was working on keeping inflation expectations at bay (Chart I-8). However, former President Ronald Reagan wanted to increase military spending and cut taxes. He got his wish. While the U.S. budget balance normally moves in line with the employment rate, as Chart I-9 illustrates, from 1984 to 1986 employment rose but the budget balance did not improve. This could have caused inflation expectations to increase because it represented a period of unwarranted fiscal expansion and excess demand. Yet inflation expectations did not move up. Instead, the Fed let real interest rates move higher, tightening monetary conditions. The dollar surged in response to a violent normalizing of the Phillips Curve. Chart I-8Inflation Expectations ##br##Are Crucial Chart I-9Investors Anticipating The Reagan / Volcker ##br##Battle Lifted The Dollar Today, the Fed will continue to fight the inflationary impact of Trump's policies. Moreover, we anticipate that the Phillips Curve is likely to become much more negatively sloped as the business cycle progresses. As Chart I-10 illustrates, not only is the unemployment rate very low, the broader U-6 measure is finally consistent with full employment. In fact, the gap between the two unemployment measures also indicates there is no more hidden labor market slack in the U.S. Additionally, while the employment-to-population ratio remains low in the context of the past 30 years, the employment-to-population ratio for prime age workers has normalized (Chart I-11). Moreover, as the bottom panel of Chart I-11 illustrates, the true culprit behind the dichotomy between the employment rate of prime-age workers and that of the rest of the population is the low employment rate of young workers. Essentially, younger Americans are getting more educated, which is keeping them out of the labor force for longer. As a result, the participation age for the population at large is likely to remain below levels that prevailed before the financial crisis. This also mean that since the participation rate for prime age workers has already normalized, additional employment gains are likely to result in additional wage gains and inflationary pressures. Chart I-10The Labor Market Points To##br## A Normalizing Phillips Curve Chart I-11Participation Is Low Because ##br##Millenials Stay In School Longer Another symptom highlighting that the labor market is very tight is the fact that the unemployment rate among individuals 25 years and older but without a high school diploma has collapsed to record lows (Chart I-12). Moreover, wage growth among this cohort has skyrocketed, normally a symptom of budding inflationary pressures (Chart I-12, bottom panel). As a result, the combination of evident pressures in the labor market and untimely fiscal stimulus is likely to realize the inflationary pressures suggested by the NFIB small business survey. When companies are much more worried about finding qualified employees than they are about finding demand for their products and services, core CPI hooks up. This time will not be different (Chart I-13). Chart I-12A Clear Sign Of Tightening Chart I-13Inflation Set To Pick Up All these dynamics raise the risk that after years of dormancy, the Phillips curve could suddenly become much steeper and more negative. The Fed is likely to use rising inflation and a steeper Phillips curve as a justification to suggest that r-star is rising. As a result, it will use this logic to push both nominal and real interest rate higher. This, in our view, will push the dollar higher. Why? As we have shown in the past, when the U.S. has the highest interest rates among the G-10, the dollar performs well (Chart I-14). However, as the top panel of Chart I-15 shows, U.S. rates are the determinant of this ranking - i.e. when the fed funds rate increases, so does the ranking of U.S. rates within the G-10. This also means the ranking of U.S. rates relative to other G-10 rates follows the U.S. business cycle. Moreover, as the bottom two panels of Chart I-15 illustrate, the current level of aggregate unemployment and of unemployment among the less-educated confirms that the U.S. should have the highest interest rates among G-10 nations. Trump's stimulus will only add fuel to the fire. Chart I-14Supported By The Highest Rates In The G10, ##br##The Dollar Can Rise Further Chart I-15The Ranking Of U.S. Rates Depends ##br##On The U.S. Business Cycle In fact, the combination of a tight labor market, high U.S. rates relative to the rest of the world and a quickly steepening normal (i.e. inverse relationship) Phillips Curve could result in a supercharged rally in the U.S. dollar. Such a rally, if it were to materialize, would likely cause very serious pain on EM economies and assets. As a result, we recommend investors closely watch the slope of the Phillips Curve in coming quarters, as it will hold the key to the dollar's path. Bottom Line: The slope of the Phillips Curve moves around significantly over time, but more interestingly, its relationship with the dollar does as well. Today's environment of a tight labor market accompanied by fiscal stimulus could result in a large steepening of the Phillips Curve. Since now the Fed is much more independent and much more focused on inflation than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s, such a shift in the Phillips Curve could supercharge the dollar's strength. Increasing this likelihood, the Fed is already at the top of the interest rate distribution among the G-10, which means the dollar remains under upward pressure. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 And we believe that the Fed will continue to conduct its monetary policy independently from the desires of the White House. Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy", dated July 27, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar: The Great Redistributor", dated October 7, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy", dated July 27, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been negative: Both average hourly earnings yearly growth and the unemployment rate came in line with expectations, at 2.7% and 3.9% respectively. However, non-farm payrolls underperformed expectations, coming in at 157 thousand. Nonetheless, the high upward revisions to the June and May numbers mitigated the blow. Moreover, the participation rate also surprised negatively, coming in at 62.9%. Finally, both Markit Services and Markit Composite PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 56 and 55.7 respectively. DXY has been flat this week. While we recognize that the dollar could have some tactical downside, it is unlikely to be very playable. Thus, investors should stay long the green back, as the combination of tightening in both China and the U.S. will create an environment of slowing global growth where the dollar benefits. However, because a countertrend correction can always be more painful than anticipated, we have bought some hedges against our long dollar call, sell USD/CAD as a form of protection. Report Links: The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus - August 3, 2018 Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area has been negative: Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 54.2. Moreover, retail sales yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 1.2%. This measure also decreased relative to last month. German factory orders yearly growth also surprised to the downside, showing a contraction of 0.8%. Finally, German industrial production yearly growth also underperformed, coming in at 2.5%. EUR/USD has been relatively flat this week. The euro is likely to have downside for the rest of the year, as tight labor market in the U.S. and powerful inflationary pressures will push the fed to raise rates more than what is priced into the OIS curve. Meanwhile, the ECB will have to stay put, as deaccelerating global growth will weigh on its export-oriented economy. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 51.3. Moreover, the leading economic index also surprised to the downside, coming in at 105.2. However, overall household spending yearly growth surprised positively, coming in at -1.2%. This measure also increased relative to last month's number. Finally, labor cash earnings yearly growth also surprised to the upside, coming in at 3.6%. USD/JPY has gone down by nearly 0.7% this week. We are bullish on the yen versus commodity and European currencies on a 6 month basis, as slowing global growth coupled with trade tensions should generate rising volatility and help safe havens like the yen. Report Links: Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Market Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 53.5. This measure also decreased from last month's number. Moreover, BRC Like-for-like retail sales yearly growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.5%. This measure also decreased from 1.1% last month. However, Halifax house prices yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 3.3%. This measure also increased form 1.8% the previous month. GBP/USD has fallen by 1% this week, as Brexit fears continue to put downward pressure on this cross. Cable will likely continue to fall until the end of the year, as rising U.S. rates will give a boost to the dollar. That being said, as the currency continues to depreciate it is important to keep an eye on whether inflation starts perking up a, as a buying opportunity might emerge. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been mixed: Home loans growth underperformed expectations, coming in at -1.1%. This measure also decreased relatively to last month's number. However, retail sales month-on-month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.4%. AUD/USD has rallied by nearly 1% this week, as investors have started to price in Chinese stimulus. Overall, we believe that any relief in tightening from the Chinese authorities will be temporary, which means that the rally in the AUD will likely be short lived. That being said, tactical investors who wish to take a position on Chinese stimulus can buy our designed "China Play Index", a risk adjusted portfolio comprised of AUD/JPY, Brazilian equities, Swedish industrials equities, iron ore and EM high yield debt. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 On Thursday, the RBNZ left its policy rate unchanged at 1.75%. NZD/USD fell by 1% following the decision. The monetary policy statement stroke a dovish tone, as the RBNZ stated that they expected "to keep the OCR (Official Cash rate) at this level through 2019 and into 2020", longer than originally projected in their May statement. Moreover, the RBNZ highlighted that the probability of rate cut, while still not its central scenario, has risen. We believe, that growth in the kiwi economy could be at risk as tightening by both the Fed and the PBoC as well as trade tensions will likely prove to be a toxic cocktail for this small open economy very levered to global trade. This means that NZD/USD is likely to continue to go down as we approach2019. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been mixed: The Ivey Purchasing Manager's Index underperformed expectations, coming in at 61.8. This measure also decreased from last month's number. Moreover, Building permit month-on-month growth also surprised negatively, coming in at -2.3%. However, International merchandise trade outperformed expectations, coming in at -0.63 billion. USD/CAD has been flat this week. We continue to hold a tactical bearish bias on this cross, as the excessive short positioning in the CAD has yet to be purged. That being said, we are bullish on this cross on a 6-12 month basis, as the Fed will likely keep raising interest rates, hurting EM economies, and consequently commodity producers like Canada. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data In Switzerland has been neutral: Headline inflation came in line with expectations, at 1.2%. This measure also increased relatively to last month's number. The unemployment rate also came in line with expectations at 2.6%. EUR/CHF has declined by roughly 0.6% this week. We believe this cross could continue to have downside on a 6 to 12 month basis if trade tensions and Chinese tightening continue to make for a risk off environment. That being said, on a longer term basis, the franc is not likely to have much upside, given that the SNB will keep ultra-dovish monetary policy in order to help bring back inflation to Switzerland. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week. We are bullish on this cross on a 6 to 12 month basis, given that widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and Norway will likely boost this cross. It is important to remember that while oil prices are an important driver of USD/NOK, our research has shown that interest rate differentials have a stronger correlation. Thus, USD/NOK could rise even amid rising oil prices. With this in mind, we are bullish on the NOK within the commodity complex, as oil should outperform base metals thanks to the supply cuts by OPEC. Strong oil prices should also help the NOK versus the EUR. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 USD/SEK has risen by more than 1% this week. We are bearish on this cross on a 6-12 month basis, as our research has shown that the krona is the most sensitive currency to the dollar in the G10. This is likely due to the fact that Sweden is a small very open economy which sits early in the global supply chain, exporting a large proportion of intermediate goods. When the dollar rises and curtails Emerging market demand, Sweden producers are the first to feel the pain from the slowdown. On a longer term basis we are more bullish on the krona, given that inflation continues to be very strong in Sweden, and the Riksbank will eventually have to adjust monetary policy accordingly. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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

Highlights Without a true banking union it is impossible to have a true monetary union. The result is a fragmented monetary policy. A fragmented monetary policy with an inflexibly rigid fiscal policy is a recipe for economic and political polarization. Until the banking union is complete, policymakers must permit a more fragmented fiscal policy as a crucial economic counterbalance. Expect a multi-year narrowing in core euro area long bond yield spreads versus their counterparts in the U.K. and U.S. Extremely loose monetary policy is inappropriate for Germany and France and ineffective for Italy. If Italy's banking system does recover to full functionality, the best long-term investment play will be Italy's real estate market. The equity play is Covivio. Feature The European Monetary Union is a contradiction because European monetary policy is not united; it is fragmented. Granted, the euro area has one policy interest rate, and one currency. But monetary policy works principally through accelerations and decelerations in the broad money supply, whose main component is bank credit. It follows that when the banking system is fragmented, a genuine monetary union is elusive. Italy Is 'Yin', The Rest Of Europe Is 'Yang' Economist Richard Koo distinguishes two distinct phases of an economy, a 'yin' phase and a 'yang' phase, with the key difference being the financial health of the private sector including the all-important banking system. In a yang economy, the private sector and the banks are solvent and functional. In such an economy, the smaller and less intrusive the government, the better. Fiscal policy is ineffective because it crowds out private investment. But monetary policy is highly effective because a forward-looking private sector generates a demand for bank credit which will accelerate or decelerate according to the policy interest rate. In a yin economy, the opposite is true. The private sector and/or the banks are insolvent and dysfunctional. In such an economy, monetary policy is ineffective. No amount of depressing interest rates, central bank liquidity injections, or bond buying is able to stimulate bank lending. This is because impaired balance sheets prevent the private sector from borrowing and/or the banks from lending. But in a yin economy, fiscal policy is highly effective. Because the private sector is single-mindedly paying down debt, the government can borrow and spend these private sector debt repayments and excess savings with no danger of crowding out. Indeed in a yin economy, if the government consistently applies an appropriately sized fiscal stimulus, the economy can continue to grow at a healthy pace. Chart I-1-Chart I-6 should make it crystal clear that while Germany and France have a yang economy, Italy has a yin economy. Chart I-1Italy Has A 'Yin' Economy: ##br##Monetary Policy Is Not Effective... Chart I-2...But Fiscal Policy##br## Is Effective Chart I-3France Has A 'Yang' Economy: ##br##Monetary Policy Is Effective... Chart I-4...But Fiscal Policy##br## Is Not Effective Chart I-5Germany Has A 'Yang' Economy:##br## Monetary Policy Is Effective... Chart I-6...But Fiscal Policy ##br##Is Not Effective A Monetary Union Needs A Banking Union In Germany and France, bank credit has surged in response to the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary policy. But in Italy, bank credit growth is almost non-existent. Through the past ten years, no amount of depressing interest rates, central bank liquidity injections, or bond buying has been able to stimulate Italy's money supply (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Italian Banks Are ##br##Not Lending... Chart I-8...Because The Italian Banking System Has##br## Been Left Undercapitalised For A Decade Furthermore, when the ECB bought Italian government bonds from investors, where did Italian investors deposit the hundreds of billions of euros they received? Not in the local Italian banks, but in German banks, which they deemed to be much safer. Italian banks are not lending, and their depositors are still very wary, because the Italian banking system has been left undercapitalized for a decade. The irony is that the ECB's bond-buying was supposed to help Italy the most, but has probably helped it the least (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The ECB's Bond-Buying Has Exacerbated##br## The Target2 Imbalances Europe's full-fledged banking union is still years away. Europe has established a single supervisor for its 130 largest banks. It has also set up a single resolution fund (SRF) to wind down failing banks in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, the SRF's coffers will not be full for another six years.1 Until then, the SRF will not be credible to the financial markets without a backstop. A candidate to provide such a backstop would be the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), but this is work in progress. Europe also lacks a common deposit insurance scheme. Knowing that the buck stops with the national government makes depositors wary, as has been the case recently in Italy. The large international banks are keen to implement a pan-European deposit insurance scheme. But this requires a clean-up of bank balance sheets in certain countries, notably Italy. Otherwise, the prudent banks will balk at the prospect of paying for the past mistakes of their less prudent competitors. Again, this is work in progress which may take several years to complete. A Fragmented Monetary Policy Requires A Fragmented Fiscal Policy If the entire euro area economy enters a yin phase, the constituent governments are allowed to use fiscal policy to support growth. For example, when the whole euro area went into a yin phase during the debt crisis, the European Commission relaxed the normal 3% cap on government deficits, and this fiscal stimulus helped the most troubled countries to weather the storm. But what if one country enters a yin phase, while the others are still in a yang phase? For example, a 'no-deal' Brexit would hit Ireland much harder than other euro area economies. The EU budget can help to an extent but, at just 1% of Europe's GDP compared to almost 20% in the U.S., the budget is small. This might still be sufficient to help Ireland, but it is insufficient for a large economy like Italy. The ESM can also help, but the assistance arrives too late - when the troubled country has already lost market access, and thereby is in, or close to, a recession. The unfortunate truth is that without a true banking union it is impossible to have a true monetary union. The result is a fragmented monetary policy, as is the case right now. A fragmented monetary policy with an inflexibly rigid fiscal policy is a recipe for economic polarization and thereby, political polarization. Therefore, until the banking union is complete, policymakers must permit a more fragmented fiscal policy as a crucial economic counterbalance. Because ultimately, a less economically polarized euro area will be a more successful and united euro area. An important test to this thesis has now arrived, as the new government in Italy prepares next year's budget. The government must agree its fiscal plan by September and present a draft to the European Commission by mid-October. Italy was projected to reduce its structural deficit by about 0.8 percent. But given that Italy will have one of the world's lowest structural deficits in the coming years, this reduction seems unnecessarily drastic (Table I-1). Because an increase in the deficit might unnerve the markets, the optimal outcome would be to leave the structural deficit close to its current level. Table 1Italy Will Have One Of The World's Lowest Structural Deficits We end with two brief thoughts for investors. The evidence clearly shows that the ECB's extremely loose monetary policy is wholly inappropriate for the euro area's mostly yang economy and largely ineffective for Italy's yin economy. On this premise, expect a multi-year narrowing in core euro area long bond yield spreads versus their counterparts in the U.K. and U.S. Finally, if Italy's banking system does gradually recover to full health and functionality, the best long-term investment play will be Italy's real estate market, in which prices have been bid down to depressed levels due to a lack of a lack of bank financing. On this premise, the long-term equity play is Covivio. Please note that I am taking a brief summer break, so the next weekly report will come out on August 23. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The SRF will be gradually built up during 2016-2023 and shall reach the target level of at least 1% of the amount of covered deposits of all credit institutions within the Banking Union by December 31 2023. Fractal Trading Model* We have seven open positions, so we are not adding any new trades this week. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights China is turning moderately reflationary, but Xi's reform agenda will remain a drag on the economy, as China will not entirely abandon the "Reform Reboot" that began last October. Fiscal spending, rather than a sharp acceleration in credit growth, will dominate China's reflationary efforts, and even a strong fiscal response would involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past. Consequently, expectations that Chinese reflation will dramatically reverse both the looming export shock as well as the underlying slowdown in China's old economy are not likely to be met. The goal of policymakers is merely to prevent a substantial, uncontrolled downturn in domestic demand. Convincing signs that China is likely to end up overstimulating in a way that results in a net positive for the global economy would cause us to advocate a more pro-cyclical investment stance. There is a small chance this may occur, but it is far from our base case view. For now, stay neutrally positioned towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio, and favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. Feature Today's Weekly Report is abridged, as we are sending you part 1 of a 2-part report written by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Last year our geopolitical team made the case that China's General Secretary Xi Jinping would double down on his reform agenda in 2018, specifically the bid to control financial risk. This view has played out quite well, and today's report presents an assessment of the likely impact of China's recent stimulus announcements along with the implications for investors. Matt's report concludes that China is turning moderately reflationary: a substantial boost to fiscal thrust, and possibly a smaller boost to credit growth, is in the works. Yet Xi's reform agenda will remain a drag on the economy, as China will not entirely abandon the "Reform Reboot" that began last October. This will be discussed next week in the second-part of the two-part series. Today's GPS report is quite timely, as the intensity of China's reflationary efforts is at the forefront of investor attention. BCA's China Investment Strategy (CIS) argued in our July 26 Weekly Report that China is taking its foot off of the brake rather than pressing the accelerator,1 meaning that so far the stimulus announced has fallen short of a substantially reflationary response that would dramatically reverse both the looming export shock as well as the underlying slowdown in China's old economy. Chart 1 shows that market signals are so far consistent with this view, at least in terms of fiscal and/or infrastructure spending. The chart shows how domestic infrastructure stocks are outperforming the broad domestic market (in response to news two weeks ago of stepped up infrastructure spending), but that their performance remains anemic relative to global stocks. Presumably, "big bang" fiscal spending in China would cause the earnings outlook for domestic infrastructure stocks to brighten considerably relative to the global average. Matt notes in today's joint report that even a strong fiscal response would involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past, and for now investors do not seem to be betting on an intense, "hard infrastructure" boom. Chart 1The Performance Of Infrastructure Stocks Does Not Herald "Big Bang" Stimulus Chart 2At First Blush, This Implies Maximum Reflationary Efforts However, one development that is not consistent with CIS' "foot off the brake" view is the extraordinary decline in interbank interest rates that has occurred over the past month. Chart 2 shows that the 3-month interbank repo rate (China's "de-facto" policy rate) has collapsed even further than it had when we published our July 26 report which, at first blush, suggests that the PBOC has turned the policy dial to maximum reflation. Chart 3 presents a stylized view of the possible PBOC reactions to the imposition of U.S. tariff imposition against China. In scenario 1, the PBOC eases policy in a way that is proportional to the tariff-induced deterioration in the growth outlook, which would stabilize the economy but not result in an acceleration in growth from conditions in place prior to the impact of tariffs on exports. In scenario 2, the PBOC stimulates disproportionately, giving investors license to expect that monetary easing will result in a growth outcome that is net positive. Chart 3A Proportional Monetary Response To A Deceleration In Growth Isn't A Net Positive For The World As Matt notes in his report, the decline in interbank interest rates may not feed through into significantly stronger credit growth if banks are afraid to lend, which could occur as long as the Xi administration remains even partially committed to its crackdown on the financial sector. The decline in the repo rate may not reflect the PBOC's intention to forcefully stimulate credit growth via lower borrowing rates, but rather is a necessary consequence of substantially increasing liquidity in the banking system to avoid any financial system instability stemming from a major shock to exports. We agree that the collapse in the 3-month repo rate is more consistent with scenario 2 than scenario 1, although there are two important counterpoints to consider: Chart 4Possibly Due To Rising NIMs, Rather Than A Significant Acceleration In Credit Growth On the second point, the crackdown on shadow banking over the past 18 months has substantially (negatively) impacted small Chinese banks, and it is conceivable that the PBOC has acted to prevent a liquidity problem from become an outright solvency problem for some financial institutions. If true, this suggests that the extent of the decline in the repo rate may be temporary, or that policymakers will employ other tools to limit the feedthrough from lower interbank borrowing costs to lending rates in the real economy in order to limit the resulting pickup in credit growth. The latter option would, in effect, purposely engineer an expansion in bank net interest margins, a scenario that could explain the recent uptick in domestic bank relative performance without resorting to a forecast of surging credit growth (Chart 4). What does this all mean for investors? Were we to see convincing signs that China is likely to end up overstimulating in a way that results in a net positive for the global economy, we would recommend a more pro-cyclical investment stance. This could likely include the constituent assets of the China Play Index presented by my colleague Mathieu Savary, Vice President of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service in his last Weekly Report,2 and we plan on employing the index as a gauge of investors' stimulus expectations. But for now, we are comfortable with our existing recommendations: investors should remain neutrally positioned towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio, and should favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. We will be monitoring the upcoming export shock as well as further policymaker responses continually over the coming weeks and months, and invite investors to come along for the ride. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Special Report "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," published July 26, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus," published August 3, 2018. Available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Xi Jinping is trying to do two things at once: ease policy while cracking down on systemic financial risk; The trade war with the U.S. is a genuine crisis for China and is eliciting fiscal stimulus; Credit growth is far more likely to "hold the line" than it is to explode upward or collapse downward; The 30% chance of a policy mistake from financial tightening has fallen to 20% only, as bad loan recognition is underway and a critical risk to monitor; Hedge against the risk of a stimulus overshoot. Feature "We have upheld the underlying principle of pursuing progress while ensuring stability." - Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, October 18, 2017 "Any form of external pressure can eventually be transformed into impetus for growth, and objectively speaking will accelerate supply-side structural reforms." - Guo Shuqing, Secretary of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, July 5 Last year we made the case that China's General Secretary Xi Jinping would double down on his reform agenda in 2018, specifically the bid to control financial risk, and that this would bring negative surprises to global financial markets as policymakers demonstrated a higher pain threshold.1 This view has largely played out, with economic policy uncertainty spiking and a bear market in equities developing alongside an increase in corporate and even sovereign credit default risk (Chart 1). We also argued, however, that Xi's "deleveraging campaign" would be constrained by the Communist Party's need for overall stability. Trade tensions with the U.S., and Beijing's perennial fear of unemployment, would impose limits on how much pain Beijing would ultimately tolerate: The Xi administration will renew its reform drive - particularly by curbing leverage, shadow banking, and local government debt. Growth risks are to the downside. But Beijing will eventually backtrack and re-stimulate, even as early as 2018, leaving the reform agenda in limbo once again.2 Over the past month, China has clearly reached its pain threshold: authorities have announced a series of easing measures in the face of a slowing economy, a trade war, and a still-negative broad money impulse (Chart 2). Chart 1Policy Uncertainty Up, Stocks Down Chart 2PMI Falling, Money Impulse Still Negative How stimulating is the stimulus? Will it lead to a material reacceleration of the Chinese economy? What will it mean for global and China-dedicated investors? We expect policy to be modestly reflationary. A substantial boost to fiscal thrust, and at least stable credit growth, is in the works. Yet Xi's reform agenda will remain a drag on the economy. While this new stimulus will not have as dramatic an effect as the stimulus in 2015-16, it will have a positive impact relative to expectations based on China's performance in the first half of the year. We advise hedging our negative EM view against a rally in China plays and upgrading expectations for Chinese growth in 2019. The policy headwind is receding for now. Xi Jinping's "Three Tough Battles" Xi will not entirely abandon the "Reform Reboot" that began last October. From the moment he came to power in 2012-13, he pursued relatively tight monetary and fiscal policy. Total government spending growth has dropped substantially under his administration, while private credit growth has been capped at around 12% (Chart 3). Chart 3Xi Jinping Caps Government Spending And Credit Xi partly inherited these trends, as China's credit growth and nominal GDP growth dropped after the massive 2008 stimulus. But he also embraced tighter policy as a way of rebalancing the economy away from debt-fueled, resource-intensive, investment-led growth. A comparison of government spending priorities between Xi and his predecessor makes Xi's policy preferences crystal clear: the Xi administration has increased spending on financial and environmental regulation, while minimizing subsidies for housing and railways to nowhere (Table 1 and 2). Table 1Central Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's Immediate Control) Table 2Total Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's General Control) These policies are "correct" insofar as they are driven not merely by Xi's preferences but by long-term constraints: The middle class: Pollution and environmental degradation threaten the living standards of the country's middle class. Broadly defined, this group has grown to almost 51% of the population, a level that EM politicians ignore only at their peril (Chart 4). Asset bubbles: The rapid increase in China's gross debt-to-GDP ratio since 2008 is a major financial imbalance that threatens to undermine economic stability and productivity as well as Beijing's global aspirations (Chart 5). The constraint is clear when one observes that "debt servicing" is the third-fastest category of fiscal spending growth since Xi came to power (Table 2). Chart 4Emerging Middle Class A Latent Political Risk Chart 5The Rise And Plateau Of Macro Leverage The problem is that Xi also faces a different, shorter-term set of constraints arising from China's declining potential GDP, "the Middle-Income Trap," and the threat of unemployment.3 The interplay of these short- and long-term constraints has forced Xi to vacillate in his policies. In 2015, the threat of an economic "hard landing," ahead of the all-important mid-term party congress in 2017, forced him to stimulate the "old" industrial economy and sideline his reforms. Only when he had consolidated power over the Communist Party in 2016-17 could he resume pushing the reform agenda.4 In July 2017, Xi announced the so-called "Three Critical Battles" against systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty. The three battles are interdependent: continuing on the capital-intensive economic model will overwhelm any efforts to cut excessive debt or pollution (Chart 6), yet sudden deleveraging could derail the Communist Party's basic claim to legitimacy through improving the lot of poor Chinese. The macroeconomic impact of the three battles is broadly deflationary, as credit growth falls and industries restructure. The first battle - the financial battle - will determine the outcome of the other two battles as well as the growth rate of China's investment-driven economy, Chinese import volumes, and emerging market stability (Chart 7). Chart 6Credit Stimulus Correlates With Pollution Chart 7Credit Determines Growth And Imports On July 31, in the midst of worldwide speculation about China's willingness to stimulate, Xi reaffirmed this "Three Battles" framework. Remarkably, despite a general slowdown, a sharp drop in the foreign exchange rate, the revival of capital flight, and a bear market, he announced that the battle against systemic financial risk would continue in the second half of 2018. However, he also admitted that domestic demand needed a boost in the short term. Hence there should be no doubt in investors' minds about the overarching policy framework or Xi Jinping's intentions in the long run. The question driving the markets today is what China will do in the short term and whether it will initiate a material reacceleration in economic activity. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping remains committed to the reform agenda that he has pursued since coming to power in 2012. But he is forced by circumstances to vary the pace and intensity. At the top of the agenda is the control of systemic financial risk. This is a policy driven by the belief that China's economic and financial imbalances threaten to undermine its overall stability and global rise. Why The Shift Toward Easier Policy? The gist of the July 31 Politburo statement was that policy will get more dovish in the short term. It mentioned "stability" five times. The Politburo pledged to make fiscal policy "more proactive" and to find a better balance between preventing financial risks and "serving the real economy." This direct promise from Xi Jinping of more demand-side support gives weight to the State Council's similar statement on July 23 and will have reflationary consequences above and beyond the central bank's marginal liquidity easing thus far. What is motivating this shift in policy, which apparently flies in the face of Xi's high-profile deleveraging campaign? If we had to name a single trigger for China's change of tack, it is not the economic slowdown so much as the trade war with the United States. The war began when the U.S. imposed sanctions on Chinese firm ZTE in April and China depreciated the RMB, but it escalated dramatically when the U.S. posted the Section 301 tariff list in June (Chart 8).5 This is a sea change in American policy that is extremely menacing to China. China runs a large trade surplus and has benefited more than any other country from the past three decades of U.S.-led globalization. Its embrace of globalization is what enabled the Communist Party to survive the fall of global communism! Chart 8More Than Market Dynamics At Work Chart 9China Is Less Export-Dependent True, China has already seen its export dependency decline (Chart 9). But Beijing has so far managed this transition gradually and carefully, whereas a not-unlikely 25% tariff on $250-$500 billion of Chinese exports will hasten the restructuring beyond its control (Chart 10). A very large share of China's population is employed in manufacturing (Chart 11). To the extent that the tariffs actually succeed in reducing external demand for Chinese goods, these jobs will be affected. Chart 10Tariffs Will Add More Pain To Factory Workers Chart 11Manufacturing Unemployment A Huge Threat Unemployment is anathema to the Communist Party. And China is simply not as experienced as the U.S. in dealing with large fluctuations in unemployment (Chart 12). While Chinese workers will blame "foreign imperialists" and rally around the flag, the pain of unemployment will eventually cause trouble for the regime. Domestic demand as well as exports will suffer. It is even possible that worker protests could evolve into anti-government protests. Chart 12China Not Experienced With Layoffs Given that Chinese and global growth are already slowing, it is no surprise that the Politburo statement prioritized employment.6 China's leaders will prepare for social instability as the worst possible outcome of the showdown with America - and that will push them toward stimulus. In addition, there will be no short-term political cost to Xi Jinping for erring on the side of stimulus, as there is no opposition party and the public is not demanding fiscal and monetary austerity. Moreover, the main macro implication of Xi's decision last year to remove term limits - enabling himself to be "president for life" in China - is that his reforms do not have to be achieved by any set date. They can be continually procrastinated on the basis that he will return to them later when conditions are better.7 The policy response to tariffs from the Trump administration also signals another policy preference: perseverance. Xi would not be straying from his reform priorities if not for a desire to counter American protectionism. China is not interested in kowtowing but would rather gird itself for a trade war. Still, our baseline view is that the Xi administration will stimulate without abandoning the crackdown on shadow lending or launching a massive "irrigation-style" credit surge that exacerbates systemic risk.8 Policy will be mixed, as Xi is trying to do two things at once. Bottom Line: China's slowdown and the outbreak of a real trade war with the United States is forcing Xi Jinping to ease policy and downgrade the urgency of his attempt to tackle systemic financial risk this year. Can Fiscal Easing Overshoot? Yes. How far will China's policy easing go? China has a low level of public debt, and fiscal policy has been tight, so we fully expect fiscal thrust to surprise to the upside in the second half of the year, easily by 1%-2% of GDP, possibly by 4% of GDP. A remarkable thing happened this summer when researchers at the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Finance began debating fiscal policy openly. Such debates usually occur during times of abnormal stress. The root of the debate lay in the national budget blueprint laid out in March at the National People's Congress. There, without changing official rhetoric about "proactive fiscal policy," the authorities revealed that they would tighten policy this year, with the aim of shrinking the budget deficit from 3% of GDP target in 2017 to 2.6% in 2018. The IMF, which publishes a more realistic "augmented" deficit, estimates that the deficit will contract from 13.4% of GDP to 13% (Chart 13). This fiscal tightening coincided with Xi's battle against systemic financial risk. Hence both monetary and fiscal policy were set to tighten this year, along with tougher regulatory and anti-corruption enforcement.9 Thus it made sense on May 8 when the Ministry of Finance revealed that the quota for net new local government bond issuance this year would increase by 34% to 2.18 trillion RMB. This quota governs new bonds that go to brand new spending (i.e. it is not to be confused with the local government debt swap program, which eases repayment burdens but does not involve a net expansion of debt). Local government spending is the key because it makes up the vast majority (85%) of total government spending, which itself is about the same size as new private credit each year. Chart 13Fiscal Tightening Was The Plan For 2018 Table 3Local Government Bond Issuance And Quota In June, local governments took full advantage of this opportunity, issuing 316 billion RMB in brand new bonds (up from a mere 17 billion in May - an 11.8% increase year-on-year) (Table 3). This spike in issuance is later than in previous years. Combined with the Politburo and State Council pledging to boost fiscal policy and domestic demand, it suggests that net new issuance will pick up sharply in H2 2018 (Chart 14).10 Chart 14Local Government Debt Can Surprise In H2 Chart 15June Issuance Surged, Special Bonds To Pick Up At the same time, the risk that special infrastructure spending will fall short this year is receding. About 1.4 trillion RMB of the year's new bond allowance consists of special purpose bonds to fund projects. The State Council said on July 23 it would accelerate the issuance of these bonds, since, at most, only 27% of the quota was issued in the first half of the year (Chart 15). The risk of a shortfall - due to stricter government regulations over the quality of projects - is thereby reduced. What is the overall impact of these moves? The Chinese government provides an annual "debt limit" that applies to the grand total of explicit, on-balance-sheet, local government debt. The limit increased by 11.6% for 2018, to 21 trillion RMB (Table 4), which, theoretically, enables local governments to splurge on a 4.5 trillion RMB debt blowout. Should that occur, 2.6 trillion RMB of that amount, or 3% of GDP, would be completely unexpected new government spending in 2018 (creating a positive fiscal thrust).11 Table 4Local Government Debt Quota Is Not A Constraint Such a blowout may not be likely, but it is legally allowed - and the political constraints on new issuance have fallen with the central government's change of stance. This means that local governments' net new bond issuance can move up toward this number. More feasibly, local governments could increase their explicit debt to 19.3 trillion RMB, a 920 billion RMB increase on what is expected, which would imply 1% of GDP in new spending or "stimulus" in 2018.12 The above only considers explicit, on-balance-sheet debt. Local governments also notoriously borrow and spend off the balance sheet. The total of such borrowing was 8.6 trillion RMB at the end of 2014, but there is no recent data and the stock and flow are completely opaque.13 The battle against systemic risk is supposed to curtail such activity this year. But the newly relaxed supervision from Beijing will result in less deleveraging at minimum, and possibly re-leveraging. Similarly, the government has said it is willing to help local governments issue refinancing bonds to deal with the spike in bonds maturing this year.14 This frees them up to actually spend or invest the money they raise from brand new bonds. In short, our constraints-based methodology suggests that the risk lies to the upside for local government debt in 2018, given that it is legal for debt to increase by as much as 2.5 trillion RMB, 3% of GDP, over the 1.9 trillion RMB increase that is already expected in the IMF's budget deficit projections for 2018. What about the central government? Its policy stance has clearly shifted. The central government could quite reasonably expand the official budget deficit beyond the 2.6% target. Indeed, that target is already outdated given that new individual tax cuts have been proposed, which would decrease revenues (add to the deficit) by, we estimate, a minimum of 0.44% of GDP over a 12-month period starting in October.15 Other fiscal boosts have also been proposed that would add an uncertain sum to this amount.16 The total of these measures can quite easily add up to 1% of GDP, albeit with the impact mostly in 2019. Finally, the strongest reason to err on the side of an upward fiscal surprise is that an expansion of fiscal policy will allow the Xi administration to boost demand without entirely relying on credit growth. First, local governments are actually flush with revenues due to strong land sales (Chart 16), which comprise around a third of their revenues. This enables them to increase spending even before they tap the larger debt allowance. Second, China's primary concern about financial risk is due to excessive corporate (and some household) leverage, particularly by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and shadow banking. It is not due to public debt per se. It is entirely sensible that China would boost public debt as it attempts to limit leverage. In fact, this would be the Zhu Rongji playbook from 1998-2001. This was the last time that China announced a momentous three-year plan to crack down on profligate lending, hidden debts, and credit misallocation. The authorities deliberately expanded fiscal policy to compensate for the anticipate credit crunch and its drag on GDP growth (Chart 17).17 Chart 16Land Sales Enable Non-Debt Fiscal Spending Chart 17China Boosted Fiscal During Last Bad Debt Purge As for the impact on the economy, the money multiplier will be meaningful because the economy is slowing and fiscal policy has been tight. But fiscal spending does operate with a six-to-ten month lag, meaning that China/EM-linked risk assets will move long before the economic data fully shows the impact. Our sense, judging by the unenthusiastic response of copper prices thus far, is that the market does not anticipate the fiscal overshoot that we now do. Bottom Line: The political constraints on local government spending have fallen. Fiscal policy could add as much as 1%-3% of GDP to the budget deficit in H2 2018, namely if local government spending is unleashed by the recently announced policy shift. This is comparable to the 4% of GDP fiscal boost in 2008-09 and 3% in 2015-16. Can Monetary Easing Overshoot? Yes, But Less Likely. Credit is China's primary means of stimulating the economy, especially during crisis moments, and it has a much shorter lag period than fiscal spending (about three months). But Xi's agenda makes the use of rapid, credit-fueled stimulus more problematic. Based on the sharp drop in the interbank rate - in particular, the three-month interbank repo rate that BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy use as a proxy for China's benchmark rate - it is entirely possible that credit growth will increase to some degree in H2 2018. Interbank rates have now fallen almost to 2016 levels, while the central bank never hiked the official 1-year policy rate during the recent upswing (Chart 18). In other words, the monetary setting has now almost entirely reversed the financial crackdown that began in 2017. The sharp drop in the interbank rate is partly a consequence of the three cuts to required reserve ratios (RRRs) this year, which amounts to 2.8 trillion RMB in new base money from which banks can lend.18 One or two more RRR cuts are expected in H2 2018, which could free up another roughly 800 billion-to-1.6 trillion RMB in new base money. With China accumulating forex reserves at a slower pace than in the past, and facing a future of economic rebalancing away from exports and growing trade protectionism, RRRs can continue to decline over the long run (Chart 19). China will not need to sterilize as large of inflows of foreign exchange.19 Chart 18Monetary Settings Back To Easy Levels Chart 19RRR Cuts Can Continue If China's banks and borrowers respond as they have almost always done, then credit growth should rise. The risk to this assumption is that the banks may be afraid to lend as long as the Xi administration remains even partially committed to its financial crackdown. Moreover, the anti-corruption campaign is continuing to probe the financial sector. While this has only produced a handful of anecdotes so far, they are significant and may have helped cause the decline in loan approvals since early 2017. Critically, China has begun the process of recognizing non-performing loans (NPLs), by requiring that "special mention loans" be reclassified as NPLs, thus implying that NPL ratios will spike, especially among small and regional lenders (Chart 20). This is part of the deleveraging process we expect to continue, but it can take on a life of its own and will almost certainly weigh on credit growth to some extent for as long as it continues. Chart 20NPL Recognition Underway (!) Chart 21Three Scenarios For Private Credit In H2 2018 What will be the prevailing trend: monetary easing or the financial crackdown? In Chart 21 we consider three scenarios for the path of overall private credit growth (total social financing, ex-equity) for the rest of the year, with our subjective probabilities: In Scenario A, 10% probability, we present an extreme case in which Beijing panics over the trade war and the banks engage in a 2009-style lending extravaganza. Credit skyrockets up to the 2010-17 average growth rate. This would mark a massive 11.9 trillion RMB or 13.8% of GDP increase in excess of the amount implied by the H1 2018 data. This size of credit spike would be comparable to the huge spikes that occurred during past crises, such as the 22% of GDP increase in 2008-09 or the 9% of GDP increase in 2015-16. Needless to say, this is not our baseline case, but it could materialize if the trade war causes a global panic. In Scenario B, 70% probability, we assume, more reasonably, that traditional yuan bank loans are allowed to rise toward their average 2010-17 growth rate as a result of policy easing, yet Xi maintains the crackdown on non-bank credit in accordance with this "Three Battles" framework. Credit growth would still decelerate in year-on-year terms, but only just: it would fall from 12.3% in 2017 to 11.5% in 2018. Additional policy measures could easily bump this up to a modest year-on-year acceleration, of course. This scenario would result in a credit increase worth 2.9 trillion RMB or 3.4% of GDP on top of the level implied by H1 2018. In Scenario C, 20% probability, we assume that the 2018 YTD status quo persists: bank credit and non-bank credit continue growing at the bleak H1 2018 rate. The administration's attempt to maintain the crackdown on financial risk could frighten banks out of lending. This would mean no credit increase in 2018 beyond what is naturally extrapolated from the H1 2018 data. Credit growth would slow from 12.3% to 10.7% in 2018. This scenario would be surprising, but not entirely implausible given that the Politburo is insisting on continuing the Three Battles. The collapse in interbank rates and the easing measures already undertaken - such as reports that the Macro-Prudential Assessments will lighten up, and that the People's Bank is explicitly softening banks' annual loan quotas20 - lead us to believe that Scenario B is most likely, and possibly too conservative. This is the scenario most consistent with the latest Politburo statement: that authorities will continue the campaign against systemic risk, namely through the policy of "opening the front door" (traditional bank loans go up) and "closing the back door" (shadow lending goes down), which began in January. The Chinese government has always considered control of financial intermediation to be essential. The only way to reinforce the dominance of the state-controlled banks, while preventing a sharp drop in aggregate demand, is to allow them to grow their loan books while regulators tie the hands of their shadow-bank rivals (Chart 22). Chart 22Opening The Front Door, Closing The Back One factor that could evolve beyond authorities' control is the velocity of money. Money velocity is essentially a gauge of animal spirits. If a single yuan changes hands multiple times, it will drive more economic activity, but if it is deposited away for a rainy day, then the bear spirit is in full force. Thus, if credit growth accelerates, but money in circulation changes hands more slowly, then nominal GDP can still decelerate - and vice versa.21 China's money velocity suffered a sharp drop during the tumult of 2015, recovered along with the policy stimulus in 2016, and has tapered a bit in 2018 in the face of Xi's deleveraging campaign. Yet it remains elevated relative to 2012-16 and clearly responds at least somewhat to policy easing. The implication is that money velocity should remain elevated or even pick up in H2. Again, the risk to this view is that Xi's ongoing battle against financial risk, and anti-corruption campaign in the financial sector, could suppress money velocity as well as credit growth. Bottom Line: We see a subjective 70% chance that the drop in credit growth will be halted or reversed in H2 as a result of the central bank's liquidity easing and the Politburo's willingness to let traditional bank lending grow while it discourages shadow lending. Our baseline case says the impact could amount to new credit worth 3.4% of GDP in H2 2018 that markets do not yet expect. Investment Conclusions Beijing's shift in policy suggests that our subjective probability of a policy mistake this year, leading to a sharp economic deceleration, should be reduced from 30% to 20% (Credit Scenario C above).22 Why is this dire scenario still carrying one-to-five odds? Because we fear that the financial crackdown and rising NPLs could take on a life of their own. Meanwhile the risk of aggressive re-leveraging has risen from 0% to 10% (Credit Scenario A above). Summing up, Table 5 provides a simple, back-of-the-envelope estimate of the size of both fiscal and monetary policy measures as a share of GDP. Table 5Potential Magnitude Of Easing/Stimulus Our bias is to expect a strong fiscal response combined with a weak-to-moderate credit response. This would reflect the Xi administration's desire to prevent asset bubbles while supporting growth. A more proactive fiscal policy harkens back to China's handling of its last financial purge in 1998-2001. If banks prove unable or unwilling to lend sufficiently, additional fiscal expansion will pick up the slack. New local government debt can surprise by 1% of GDP or more, while formal bank lending amidst an ongoing crackdown on shadow lending could add new credit of around 3.4% of GDP and hence mitigate or halt the slowdown in credit growth. The combined effect would be an unexpected boost to demand worth 4.4% of GDP in H2 2018, which would exert an unknown, but positive, multiplier effect. We are replacing our "Reform Reboot" checklist, which has seen every item checked off, with a new "Stimulus Checklist" that we will monitor going forward (Appendix). Chart 23How To Monitor The Stimulus Impact Neither the size of this stimulus, nor the composition of fiscal spending, will be quite as positive for EM/commodities as were past stimulus efforts. China's investment profile is changing as the reform agenda seeks to reduce industrial overcapacity and build the foundations for stronger household demand and a consumer society. Increases in fiscal spending today will involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past. We recommend reinstituting our long China / short EM equity trade, using MSCI China ex-tech equities. We also recommend reinitiating our long China Big Five Banks / short other banks trade, to capture the disparity of the financial crackdown's impact. To capture the new upside risk for global risk assets, our colleague Mathieu Savary at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has devised a "China Play" index that is highly sensitive to Chinese growth - it includes iron ore prices, Swedish industrial stocks, Brazilian stocks, and EM junk bonds (all in USD terms), as well as the Aussie dollar-Japanese yen cross. BCA Geopolitical Strategy also recommends this trade as a portfolio hedge to our negative EM view (Chart 23).23 A major risk to the "modest reflation" argument in this report will materialize if the RMB depreciates excessively in response to the escalating trade war (Trump will likely post a new tariff list on $200 billion worth of goods in September).24 This could result in renewed capital outflows breaking through China's capital controls, the PBC appearing to lose control, EM currencies and capital markets getting roiled, EM financial conditions tightening sharply, and global trade and growth slowing sharply. China would ultimately have to stimulate more (moving in the direction of Credit Scenario A above), but a market selloff would occur first and much economic damage would be done. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyun@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma, Contributing Editor yushum@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 The fact that he began tightening financial policy in late 2016 and early 2017 was especially significant because only a very self-assured leader would attempt something so risky ahead of a midterm party congress. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, and "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The statement declared in its first paragraph that China would "maintain the stability of employment," with employment being the first item in a list. A similar emphasis on employment has not been seen in Politburo statements since the troubled year of 2015, and it has not been mentioned substantively in 11 key meetings since the nineteenth National Party Congress last October. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 After the State Council meetings on July 23 and 26, Vice-Minister of Finance Liu Wei elaborated on the government's thinking: "These [measures] further add weight to the overall broad logic at the start of the year ... It isn't at all that the macro-economy has undergone any major volatility, and we are not undertaking any irrigation-style, shock-style measures." Please see "Beijing Sheds Light On Plans For More Active Fiscal Policy," China Banking News, July 27, 2018, available at www.chinabankingnews.com. 9 Our colleagues in BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service have dubbed this policy "triple tightening." Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM And China: A Deleveraging Update," dated November 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 This spike in net new issuance in the single month of June is equivalent to 19.8% of the total net new issuance in 2017. It is also much higher than the average monthly issuance in 2014-17 or in 2017 alone. However, since June and July have typically seen the largest spikes in new issuance, it will be critical to see if new issuance in 2018 remains elevated after July. Notably, local government bond issuance is currently divided between brand new bonds, debt swap bonds, and refinancing bonds, but the debt swap program will expire in August, and the refinancing bonds are separate, meaning that a larger share of the allowed new issuance will involve new spending. 11 The IMF expects the change in local government explicit debt this year to be 1.9 trillion RMB. That is, a rise from 16.5 trillion existing to 18.4 trillion estimated. 12 This number is derived by assuming that total debt reaches 92.2% of the debt limit in 2018, which is the share it reached in 2015 (since 2015 the share has fallen to 87.5% in 2017). However, 2015 was a year of fiscal easing, so it is not unreasonable to apply this ratio to 2018 as an upper estimate, now that the government's easing signal is clear. One reason that local governments have been increasing debt more slowly than allowed was that the central government was tightening investment restrictions, for instance on urban rail investment. Many new subway projects of second-tier cities have been suspended, and after raising the qualifications for subway and light rail, the majority of third- and fourth-tier cities were not qualified to build urban rail at all. As a result, local governments' investment intentions were dropping. Now this may change. 13 This estimate comes from the Ministry of Finance. The previous estimate was from the National Accounting Office and stood at 7 trillion RMB as of June 2013. 14 Maturities will spike in the coming years, so this policy signal suggests that further support for refinancing will be forthcoming. There are even unconfirmed rumors of a second phase of the local government debt swap program, which would cover "hidden debt." 15 We say "minimum" because we do not include projections of the impact of tax deductions, lacking details. We only estimate the headline savings to household incomes - loss to government revenues - based on the increase of the individual income tax eligibility threshold and the reduction in tax rates for different income brackets. 16 Additional fiscal measures include corporate tax cuts, R&D expense credits, VAT rebates, and reductions in various fees. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "What Geopolitical Risks Keep Our Clients Awake?" dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 In fact it is more like 1.9 trillion due to strings attached, but a fourth or even fifth RRR cut could push it 3.5 trillion for the year, assuming the average 800 billion cut. 19 Ultimately this trend will result in tightening liquidity conditions in China, but for now forex reserves are not draining massively, while the RRR cuts are easing domestic liquidity. 20 Please see "China Said To Ease Bank Capital Rule To Free Up More Lending," Bloomberg, July 25, and "China's Central Bank Steps Up Effort To Boost Lending," August 1, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 21 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 2, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus," dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True," dated August 3, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix

Highlights Real Rate "Targeting": Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. U.K.: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Japan: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Feature Chart Of The WeekA 'New, New Normal' Of Higher Real Rates? Three major central banks met last week and, surprisingly, the most important message did not come from the Federal Reserve. The Bank of England (BoE) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) both delivered policy decisions that appeared more hawkish on the surface, even though the underlying message was far more mixed. The BoE hiked rates by 25bps, while the BoJ tweaked its yield curve control policy by raising the allowable ceiling for the 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) to 0.2%. Yet both central banks signaled - through published research, commentary and outright forward guidance - that the timing of the next policy move is uncertain. This contrasts with the Fed, who continues to signal a slow-but-steady path of U.S. rate hikes over at least the next year. The BoE and BoJ are dealing with the same issues that all the major developed market central banks are facing now - how to reconcile low unemployment and an apparent dearth of spare economic capacity with only modest upward inflation momentum and real interest rates that appear too low (Chart of the Week). Against that backdrop, the communication of central banker strategies to the public, and to the financial markets, is critical to their success, defined by keeping inflation stable around target levels. The Fed has been a leader in introducing nuance into the execution, and communication, of post-crisis policymaking. First, by focusing more on underutilized capacity in the U.S. labor market to justify keeping the funds rate low despite the headline unemployment rate falling below its estimate of "full" employment. Later, by focusing attention on real interest rates and the possibility that the neutral level of that rate (a.k.a. "r-star") can vary cyclically from levels that would previously have been considered consistent with full employment and stable inflation. In both cases, the Fed has provided a framework that allows some wiggle room as it continues to normalize away from crisis-era policy settings. Passionate advocates of the concept like current New York Fed President John Williams have led the Fed's growing focus on r-star. Yet in its latest Inflation Report published last week, the BoE dedicated five full pages to the topic of estimating r-star in the U.K.1 Other central banks have discussed their own estimates of r-star over the past year, as well.2 This is an important point for global bond markets. If other central banks begin to follow the lead of the Fed and elevate the importance of "real rate targeting" into their inflation targeting frameworks, then real bond yields could have significant upside with policy rates still not above realized inflation in the major developed economies. This will especially be true if factors that have kept r-star cyclically depressed in many countries in the post-crisis era - weak productivity growth, fiscal consolidation, excess capacity in labor markets, household deleveraging, among others - continue to slowly dissipate. At the moment, the most important themes for global financial markets relate to the ongoing Fed tightening cycle, the potential for policy stimulus in China in response to slowing domestic growth, and the slowing growth of central bank balance sheets (Chart 2). All three are bond bearish. We could add a fourth item to that list - U.S. protectionism, which can lead to slowing global through diminished trade activity. While there is evidence from many countries that a more uncertain outlook for global trade has negatively affected business confidence, there is also some tentative evidence that the deceleration in global trade activity may be in the process of stabilizing (Chart 3). Yet even if the U.S. - China trade tensions worsen and industrial activity slows further, tariffs and trade barriers represent a supply shock that could result in higher global inflation and prevent a meaningful decline in bond yields. Summing it all up for our government bond investment strategy, we continue to recommend: a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance country allocation (Chart 4) with underweight exposure to countries where central banks can credibly raise interest rates (U.S., Canada) and overweight exposure where rate hikes will be more difficult to deliver (U.K., Japan, Australia) Bottom Line: Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. Chart 2The Biggest Market Risks Are Bond Bearish Chart 3Tentative Signs Of Global Trade Stabilization? Chart 4Underweight Countries That Can Credibly ##br##Raise Rates (And Vice Versa) Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts, Even After The BoE Rate Hike The BoE delivered a 25bp rate hike last week, bringing its Bank Rate to 0.75%. The growth and inflation forecasts for the next three years were essentially unchanged, however. The hike was described by BoE Governor Mark Carney as a sign of growing confidence by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in its forecast. Thus, another step towards normalizing the Bank Rate from accommodative levels was appropriate. In the press conference following the MPC meeting, Carney noted that the recent pickup in U.K. wage growth was an important development. Carney said that with the economy at full employment,3 the BoE's job is to "manage demand" to control inflation while nominal wage growth expands. Real wage growth has crept back into positive territory in recent months (Chart 5). Numerous indicators were presented in the August 2018 Inflation Report to suggest that U.K. labor markets are growing increasingly tight - including faster wage growth for those switching jobs than those staying in jobs (bottom panel) and survey data showing greater pay increases in sectors facing recruitment and retention difficulties. The BoE did downplay the recent cooling of realized U.K. inflation, which has been more a product of the stability of the pound than an easing of domestic inflation pressures. While this is true, market-based measures of inflation expectation like CPI swaps have also been following the path of the pound, rather than typical forces like oil prices, since the collapse in the pound after the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 6). On the margin, however, the more stable pound means that U.K. inflation will be more influenced by domestic factors, like tight labor markets and wage pressures. Chart 5Mixed Signals From The U.K. Labor Market Chart 6U.K. Inflation Following The Pound, Not The Labor Market As discussed earlier, the BoE did devote a significant section of the latest Inflation Report to the topic of the neutral real rate or r-star. The BoE noted that there was a longer-term and shorter-term r-star, and that the latter had to be deeply negative in recent years given the shocks from the 2008 Financial Crisis and recession to the 2016 Brexit vote to the fiscal austerity of recent Conservative governments. As the impacts of those shocks fades, the shorter-term r-star increases, requiring faster BoE rate hikes. Or as it was described in the Inflation Report: "The expected rise in r* over coming years, combined with the absorption of spare capacity over the forecast period, means that - even as inflation is projected to fall back toward 2% - the Bank Rate is likely to need to rise gradually to keep inflation at the target. But the persistence of the fall in the trend real rate means that any rises in the Bank Rate are expected to be limited, and interest rates are likely to need to remain low by historical standards for some time to come." That sounds like the BoE wanting to have its cake and eat it too, talking up rate hikes while making the case for rates to stay low for longer. The longer-run r-star estimates shown in the Inflation Report (between 0.5% and 1.5%) when added to the 2% BoE inflation target, suggests that the neutral nominal Bank Rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%. That does imply that there is a lot of scope for additional BoE rate hikes without even reaching a level that could be considered "'neutral' from a longer-term perspective" (Chart 7). It will be difficult for the BoE to deliver on any additional rate hikes, however, while both the economy and inflation are decelerating. The current pricing in the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that there are only 42bps of hikes discounted by the end of 2020. That represents a very low hurdle to overcome, even if the U.K. economy remains sluggish and the Brexit outcome turns ugly. From a strategy perspective, we think that Gilt yields can rise above the current shallow path of the forward curve over the next 6-12 months, suggesting that a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.K. is appropriate. Yet with U.K. growth slowing and leading indicators suggesting more of that is to come, and with still no resolution to the Brexit negotiations with the March 29, 2019 "Brexit Day" looming in the distance, Gilt yields are likely to stay relatively subdued versus global peers. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Gilts in hedged global bond portfolios (Chart 8). Chart 7U.K. Real Rates Are WAY Below Longer-Run R-Star Chart 8Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts Bottom Line: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Bank of Japan: Zero Pressure On The 0% Target Global bond yields got a bit of a jolt recently from the most unlikely of sources - Japan, the place where bond volatility goes to die. Amid media speculation that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) was considering an upward adjustment to its JGB yield target, the 10-year JGB took several runs at breaching the BoJ's implied pain threshold of 0.10%, resulting in the BoJ intervening with offers of "unlimited" purchases to quell the selloff. Yet at the monetary policy meeting last week, the BoJ only delivered modest changes: The allowable range for the 10-year JGB yield was widened to -0.20% to +0.20% New forward guidance was introduced indicating no rate hikes until at least 2020 A shift in the BoJ's equity ETF purchases to favor ETF's that target a broader index We were not surprised by the outcome, given that there was absolutely no reason why the BoJ should have even considered a change in policy settings. Back in February, we outlined the three things that we believed must ALL occur before the BoJ could plausibly raise its yield target for the 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB).4 Five months later, none of those conditions has been met (Chart 9): 1) The USD/JPY exchange rate must at least get back to the 115-120 range. USD/JPY has struggled to reach even the bottom end of our target range, only getting to an intraday high of 113.17 on July 19th. The starting point for the yen must be weaker than that before the BoJ can deliver any sort of more hawkish policy that would likely send the yen roaring higher. 2) Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5%. The extremely tight Japanese labor market (Chart 10) has finally begun to put upward pressure on wage growth, which now sits at 2.2% on a year-over-year basis. There has been no follow through into core inflation, however, which only got as high at 0.5% in March before sliding back to 0.2% in June. Chart 9None Of Our Conditions For A BoJ Hike Have Been Met Chart 10How Does This Job Market Not Produce Inflation? 3) The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus U.S. Treasuries. We judge this by looking at the residual from a fundamental model of the 10-year JGB yield published by the BoJ. The model includes both the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield as the proxy for global yields, and the share of outstanding JGBs owned by the central bank to measure the impact of BoJ buying (Table 1). That model suggests that current JGB yields are only at fair value, and that U.S. Treasury yields have to rise by a lot more (to at least 3.5%) to make the current level of JGB yields look "expensive", thus justifying a higher BoJ yield target (USD/JPY would likely be in the 115-120 range if that happened, as well). Yet despite all these factors arguing against any change in the BoJ's policy settings, the topic was seriously discussed at last week's policy meeting, according to Reuters.5 The renewed weakness of Japanese inflation scuttled any chance that a serious policy change could be delivered. The decision to widen the allowable yield range for the 10-year JGB yield not associated with any signaled change to the 0% yield target. Investors got the hint, and yields have calmed down after the late July turbulence. The BoJ is increasingly backed into a corner with its hyper-easy monetary policy. There is no spare capacity in the economy, with the unemployment rate at a 25-year low of 2.4% and the BoJ estimating that the output gap is closed. Our own Japan Central Bank Monitor is no longer in negative territory, indicating that the next policy move should be a tightening (Chart 11). The BoJ has indeed been "tightening", but only by reducing the pace of its bond buying. BoJ purchases now only matches the pace of new JGB - a far cry from when the BoJ was buying more than all new JGBs issued between 2013 and 2017 (bottom two panels). Table 1JGB Yield Model Chart 11BoJ Has Been Quantitatively Tightening There is a reported disagreement within the BoJ over the impact of the negative interest rate and yield curve control policies on Japanese bank profitability and lending capacity. Yet any sort of rate hike, at either end of the yield curve, would result in a sharp increase in the yen. To have that happen now would harm Japanese exporters' competitiveness at the worst possible time. Economic growth is decelerating in two of Japan's major trading partners, China and South Korea. At the same time, U.S. protectionism risks trade wars that would slow global trade at a time when Japanese export growth, and business confidence, may already be peaking (Chart 12). We continue to recommend an overweight position in Japanese government debt within hedged global government bond portfolios. Admittedly, the idea of overweighting a market where nearly half of all bonds still have a negative yield does not sound like a path to riches. Yet the BoJ stands out as the one major central bank that has virtually no chance at credibly talking about, much less delivering, any sort of monetary tightening with core inflation close to 0%. If non-Japanese yields continue to rise over the next 6-12 months, as we expect, then JGBs will once again be a relative outperformer in a global bond bear market (Chart 13). Chart 12Japan Is Vulnerable To A Global Trade War Chart 13Stay Overweight JGBs In Hedged Global Bond Portfolios Bottom Line: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The r-star discussion can be found on pages 39-43 of the August 2018 BoE Inflation Report, which can be found here https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/inflation-report/2018/august/inflation-report-august-2018.pdf 2 For example, the BoJ's estimates of Japan's r-star can be found here, https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2018/data/wp18e06.pdf, while the Bank of Canada's estimates for Canadian r-star can be found here https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/boc-review-autumn2017-dorich.pdf 3 The BoE estimates full employment to be around the current unemployment rate of 4.25%, which is well below the OECD's estimate of 5.5% shown in the top panel of Chart 5. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?" dated February 13, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-boj-policy-insight/bojs-architect-of-shock-and-awe-plots-retreat-from-stimulus-idUSKBN1KR0TA Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: We follow last week's report outlining our stance on interest rates with a review of the credit cycle and its current position. The credit cycle is not just about borrowers: Lender willingness is inversely related to loan performance over a five-year horizon, but it amplifies near-term performance swings. Our bond strategists use three broad indicators to track the credit cycle...: Valuation, monetary conditions and credit quality all offer insight into corporate bond performance. ... and we also consider the fed funds rate cycle: The way that lenders interact with the monetary policy backdrop is discouraging for the course of human evolution, but it follows a well-defined pattern that helps demarcate the credit cycle. The cycle is in its latter stages, and investors should be in the process of dialing down credit exposures: Our bond strategists downgraded spread product to neutral in mid-June, and we won't return to overweight until the next recession is well underway. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses and forecasts of financial markets and the economy for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. This report continues our focus on going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Next week's Special Report will present a simple indicator for anticipating the onset of a recession and the end of the equity bull market. After Labor Day, we will publish a Special Report updating, and expanding upon, our work on the fed funds rate cycle. By the unofficial end of the summer, then, we will have outlined our positions on rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. That will provide us with a framework for evaluating incoming data and engaging in an ongoing investment-focused dialogue. It will also hopefully put us in position to identify the first set of major cyclical inflection points since 2007-8 in a timely fashion. 2019 is shaping up as a pivotal year for asset allocation, and we look forward to navigating it alongside our clients. Lenders Never Learn, Part I: Lending Standards Investors typically think of the credit cycle exclusively in terms of borrower performance. After all, cycle peaks and troughs are defined by default-rate troughs and peaks. There are two parties to every loan, though, and a narrow focus on debtors precludes a full understanding of the landscape. The credit cycle encompasses lender willingness as well as borrower performance. Bad loans are made in good times, just as surely as good loans are made in bad times. Skepticism and gloom carry the day in a recession and its immediate aftermath, and the loans that manage to get made early in the credit cycle are tightly underwritten, insulated with a margin of safety that would warm Benjamin Graham's heart. As the cycle stretches on, however, lenders forget about the trauma of the last downturn and focus more on market share than standards. The fact that standards impact performance with a lag much longer than the annual bonus cycle obscures their importance and helps them persist. Like the rest of us, loan officers and their managers learn best when they receive immediate feedback that clearly results from their decisions. Over the three-decade history of the Federal Reserve's senior loan officer survey the last three cycles, however, it appears that lending standards impact loan performance with as much as a five-year lag. The Chart Of The Week shows the net percentage of loan officers tightening standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to large and mid-sized companies, inverted and advanced by 20 quarters. Easy standards line up with peak defaults, and tight standards align with default troughs. Chart of the WeekLending Standards Are Negatively Correlated With Intermediate-Term Loan Performance ... The lag between loan approval and loan performance is far too long to reinforce learning, however. Over the course of five years, factors that could not have been foreseen at origination may well end up precipitating a default. Lenders' response to that long-term uncertainty may help explain the positive short-term correlation (Chart 2). Partially goaded by pro-cyclical loan-loss reserve standards, lenders react to surging default rates by getting more conservative, nudging default rates higher in a feedback loop that plants the seeds for strong intermediate-term performance. Chart 2... But They March In Lockstep With Loan Performance In The Near Term Bottom Line: 2014's cyclical bottom in standards suggests that rising default rates will not peak until late 2019 or 2020. Increased near-term lender caution will reinforce the upward move. Tracking The Credit Cycle: Default Rates When the economy is expanding, borrowers in the aggregate find it easier to service their debts, just as recessions make debt service more onerous. The pro-cyclicality of inflation, which eases debt burdens, helps reinforce the relationship. There is more to tracking the credit cycle than tracking the business cycle, however. While defaults have peaked within five months after the end of the last three recessions, default-rate troughs have varied wildly, occurring anywhere from six years before the recession to the month it began (Chart 3). Our credit strategists try to identify the point at which defaults begin to take off by tracking lending standards, monetary conditions, and credit quality. None of these factors suggests that default rates can make new lows. The loan officer survey could improve, but tight spreads leave almost no room for the bond market to become more receptive (Chart 4). Monetary conditions are steadily becoming less accommodative, helped along by the rate-hike/dollar-strength loop (Chart 5). Our bond strategists expect that credit quality will weaken as soon as upward wage pressure snuffs out pre-tax corporate profits'1 ability to keep up with double-digit debt growth. It's hard to say just when default rates will begin to erode total returns in a meaningful way, but our bond strategists are of a mind that risk is rapidly catching up with reward. Chart 3The Business Cycle Reliably Calls Peaks,##BR##But It's No Help With Troughs Chart 4Little Room##BR##For Improvement Chart 5Tightening,##BR##But Not Yet Tight Tracking The Credit Cycle: Corporate Spreads Chart 6Spreads Aren't Ready To Blow Out Yet High-yield data only exist for the last two spread-widening episodes, but what they lack in quantity they make up for in consistency. Heading into both the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, spreads did not widen in earnest (Chart 6, top panel) until the Fed had completed its tightening cycle (Chart 6, second panel), BCA's proprietary Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) began to deteriorate (Chart 6, third panel), and lenders tightened their standards (Chart 6, bottom panel). That template suggests that spreads are not poised to blow out anytime soon, as we expect the Fed will not be finished tightening before the end of 2019 (or later), and lenders are still actively easing their standards for commercial borrowers. As noted above, we expect that deterioration in the CHM will pick up again, once runaway profit growth ceases to paper over surging leverage. All in all, our bond strategists do not think it is anywhere near time to panic. As with defaults, they think it is still too soon to expect the beginning of sustained spread widening. On balance, however, the indicators suggest that return expectations should be modest, and limited to coupon yields. It is too late to buy bonds with the expectation of realizing capital gains, and prudent return projections should pencil in some minor capital losses. Lenders Never Learn, Part II: The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The fed funds rate cycle has been a U.S. Investment Strategy pillar, informing many of our views on cycles and asset markets. We will publish a Special Report delving into it more fully the first week of September, but a quick summary is sufficient to illustrate its relevance to the credit cycle. We divide the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on whether the Fed is hiking rates or cutting them, and whether or not the fed funds exceeds our estimate of the equilibrium rate. Per our stylized representation of the cycle (Chart 7), we are currently in Phase I (the Fed is hiking, but policy remains accommodative) and are likely to remain there until the second half of 2019, when we expect that policy will turn restrictive, ushering in Phase II. While we have found that the level of the fed funds rate trumps its direction when it comes to explaining equity and bond returns, loan growth is more sensitive to the direction of rates. Banks expand their loan books more rapidly when the Fed is tightening than they do when it's easing. The effect is most pronounced for C&I loans, which grow five times faster during rake-hiking campaigns than they do during rate-cutting campaigns (Table 1). The conclusion may seem counter-intuitive on its face, but one must remember that the Fed is charged with leaning against the cycle: it tightens when times are good to keep them from becoming too good, and its eases when times are bad to get the economy back on its feet. Chart 7The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1An Example Of What Not To Do Lenders who take a countercyclical tack operate with the policy wind at their back. Those who follow the cycle are actually fighting the Fed. Most lenders short-sightedly follow the crowd aping the cycle, basing future projections on the most recent data samples and hewing to career incentives that encourage herding. Bankers who load up on loans when the cycle is demonstrably old and approaching its peak make two errors: they ignore a well-established cyclical pattern (tightening leads recessions, which lead defaults and higher losses given default), and they deploy capital when it's widely available in the marketplace, but husband it when it's scarce. Bottom Line: Banks reinforce the credit cycle by avidly deploying capital when conditions are about to take a turn for the worse, and withholding it when they're about to get better. We recommend investors reject their example, and limit their exposure to spread product. Investment Implications If our view that the Fed is going to hike rates more than the consensus expects is correct, all bonds will have to contend with a persistent headwind. Thanks to positive carry, and high-yield bonds' structurally shorter duration, spread product will be less vulnerable than Treasuries. Our bond strategists are nonetheless lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The cycle is clearly in its latter stages and spreads are historically tight. We remain constructive on both the business cycle and the monetary policy cycle, and we are not yet ready to throw in the towel on the equity bull market. Although our equity take is more sanguine than the BCA consensus, our optimism does not extend to the credit cycle, which has clearly passed its peak. While neither modest spread widening nor a mild pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out all of spread product's excess returns, we do not expect that they will be large enough to merit more than benchmark weighting in balanced portfolios. Our sister Global ETF Strategy service's model portfolios hold benchmark spread-product positions (while underweighting Treasuries, maintaining below-benchmark duration across all bond categories, and overweighting cash) and that is the way we intend to be positioned in the small basket of ETFs we will recommend once we've completed our review of the most impactful macro drivers. A Note On Payrolls Friday's Goldilocks employment situation report for July reinforced our views on the economy and rates, but it was mixed enough to have satisfied anyone's preconceived notions. July's net payroll gains fell shy of the consensus expectation, but revisions to May and June pushed the 3-month moving average of net gains to over 224,000, slightly above expectations. Neither hours worked nor average hourly earnings set off any alarm bells, but the "hidden" unemployment rate slid 30 basis points to 7.5%, the lowest level since May 2001. We see the seeds of future inflation pressures in the continued absorption of slack, and believe that the Fed does as well. We continue to expect four hikes this year and next, two more than the money market is currently discounting. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Annualized profit growth calculated with data from the BEA's National Income and Profit Accounts.

Highlights Paradox 1: U.S. growth will slow, and this will force the Fed to raise rates MORE quickly. Paradox 2: China will try to stimulate its economy, and this will HURT commodities and other risk assets. Paradox 3: Global rebalancing will require the euro area and Japan to have LARGER current account surpluses. Feature Faulty Assumptions Investors assume that slower U.S. growth will cause the Fed to turn more dovish; efforts by China to stimulate its economy will boost market sentiment towards risk assets; and global rebalancing requires the euro area and Japan to reduce their bloated current account surpluses. In this week's report, we consider the possibility that all three assumptions are wrong. Let's start with the U.S. growth picture. U.S. Growth About To Slow? The U.S. economy grew by 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The composition of growth was reasonably solid. Net exports boosted real GDP by 1.1 percentage points, but this was largely offset by a 1.0 point drag from a slower pace of inventory accumulation. As a result, domestic final demand increased at a robust rate of 3.9%, led by personal consumption (up 4.0%) and business fixed investment (up 7.3%). Unfortunately, the second quarter is probably as good as it gets for growth. We say this not because we expect aggregate demand growth to falter to any great degree. Quite the contrary. Consumer confidence is high and the labor market is strong, with initial unemployment claims near 49-year lows. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest revisions revealed a much higher personal savings rate than had been previously estimated (Chart 1). The savings rate is now well above levels that one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 2). This raises the odds that consumer spending will accelerate. Chart 1Households Are Saving More ##br##Than Previously Thought Chart 2Consumption Could Accelerate ##br##As The Savings Rate Drops Rising consumer demand will prompt businesses to expand capacity (Chart 3). Core capital goods orders surprised on the upside in June, with positive revisions made to past months. Capex intention surveys remain at elevated levels. So far, fears of a trade war have not had a major impact on business investment. Fiscal spending is also set to rise. Federal government expenditures increased by only 3.5% in Q2, far short of the 10%-plus growth rate that some forecasters were projecting. The effect of the tax cuts have also yet to make their way fully through the economy. Supply Matters Considering all these positive drivers of demand, why do we worry that growth could slow meaningfully later this year or in early 2019? The answer is that for the first time in over a decade, demand is no longer the binding constraint to growth - supply is. Today, there are fewer unemployed workers than job vacancies (Chart 4). The number of people outside the labor force who want a job is near all-time lows. Businesses are reporting increasing difficulty in finding qualified labor. Chart 3U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex Chart 4Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings New business investment will add to the economy's productive capacity over time, but in the near term, the boost to aggregate demand from new investment spending will easily exceed the contribution to aggregate supply.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential real GDP growth is running at around 2%. What happens when the output gap is fully eliminated, and aggregate demand growth begins to eclipse supply growth? The answer is that inflation will rise. Instead of more output, we will see higher prices (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Rising inflation will force the Fed to engineer an increase in real interest rates, even in the face of slower GDP growth. Such a stagflationary outcome is not good for equities, which is one reason why we downgraded our cyclical recommendation on risk assets from overweight to neutral in June. Higher-than-expected real interest rates will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A stronger dollar will hurt U.S. companies with significant foreign exposure more than it hurts their domestically-oriented peers. If history is any guide, a resurgent greenback will also cause credit spreads to widen (Chart 6). Chinese Stimulus: Be Careful What You Wish For Chinese stimulus helped reignite global growth after the Global Financial Crisis and again during the 2015-2016 manufacturing downturn. With global growth slowing anew, will China once again come to the rescue? Not quite. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels, and an overvalued property market plagued by excess capacity, limit what the authorities can do (Chart 7). Chart 6A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads Chart 7China: High Debt Levels Make ##br##Credit-Fueled Stimulus A Risky Proposition Granted, the government has loosened monetary policy at the margin and plans to increase fiscal spending. However, our China strategists feel these actions are more consistent with easing off the brake than pressing down on the accelerator.2 They note that the authorities continue to squeeze the shadow banking system, as evidenced by the continued deceleration in money and credit growth, as well as rising onshore spreads for the riskiest corporate bonds (Chart 8). The Specter Of Currency Wars If Chinese growth continues to decelerate, what options do the authorities have? One possibility is to double down on what they are already doing: letting the RMB slide. Chart 9 shows that the Chinese currency has weakened substantially more over the past six weeks than its prior relationship with the dollar would have suggested. Chart 8Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chart 9The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected ##br##Based On the Broad Dollar Trend Letting the currency weaken is a risky strategy. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led some commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by enough to flush out expectations of a further decline. Perhaps China was simply too timid? Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a trade war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China in 2017, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, China is better positioned to wage a currency war with the United States. The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Efforts by China to devalue its currency would invite retaliation from the United States. However, since the Trump Administration seems keen on pursuing a protectionist trade agenda no matter what happens, the Chinese may see their decision to weaken the yuan as the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unlike traditional stimulus in the form of additional infrastructure spending and faster credit growth, a currency devaluation would roil financial markets, causing risk asset prices to plunge. Metal prices would take it on the chin, since a weaker RMB would make it more expensive for Chinese businesses to import commodities. China now consumes close to half of the world's supply of copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, and iron ore (Chart 10). Investors should remain underweight emerging market equities relative to developed markets and shun the currencies of commodity-exporting economies. We are currently short AUD/CAD on the grounds that a China shock would hurt metal prices more than energy prices. The Canadian dollar is highly levered to the latter, while the Aussie dollar is more levered to the former. Global Rebalancing: It's Not About Getting To Zero We have argued before that China's high savings rate explains why the country has maintained a structural current account surplus, despite the economy's rapid GDP growth rate.3 Both the euro area and Japan also have an excessive savings problem, minus the mitigating effect of rapid trend growth. The euro area's excessive savings problem was masked during the nine years following the introduction of the euro by a massive credit boom across much of the region (Chart 11). Germany did not partake in that boom, but it was still able to export its excess savings to the rest of the euro area via a rising current account balance. Chart 10China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil Chart 11Germany Did Not Take Part ##br##In The Credit Boom Germany Needs A Spender Of Last Resort Chart 12 shows that Germany's current account surplus with other euro area members mirrored the country's increasing competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the region. In essence, the spending boom in southern Europe sucked in German exports, with German savings financing the periphery's swelling current account deficits. This is the main reason why German banks were hit so hard during the Global Financial Crisis: They were the ones who underwrote the periphery's spendthrift ways. That party ended in 2008. With the periphery no longer the spender of last resort in Europe, Germany had to find a way to export its savings to the rest of the world. But that required a cheaper currency, which Mario Draghi ultimately delivered in 2014 when he set in motion the ECB's own quantitative easing program. So where do we go from here? Germany's excess savings problem is not about to go away anytime soon. The working-age population is set to decline over the next few decades, which means that most domestically oriented businesses will have little incentive to expand capacity (Chart 13). The peripheral countries remain in belt-tightening mode. This will limit demand for German imports. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain have made significant progress in reducing unit labor costs in an effort to improve competitiveness and shift their current account balances back into surplus. Chart 12Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed ##br##Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Chart 13Germans Need To Have More Children The ECB And The BOJ Can't Afford To Raise Rates The private sector financial balance in the euro area - effectively, the difference between what the private sector earns and spends - now stands near a record high (Chart 14). Fiscal policy also remains fairly tight. The IMF estimates that the euro area's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance will be in a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2018-19, compared to a deficit of 3.8% of GDP in the United States (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area: Private Sector ##br##Balance Remains Elevated Chart 15The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight If the public sector is unwilling to absorb the private sector's excess savings by running large fiscal deficits, those savings need to be exported abroad in the form of a current account surplus. Failure to do so will result in higher unemployment, and ultimately, further political upheaval. This means that the ECB has no choice other than to keep rates near rock-bottom levels in order to ensure that the euro remains cheap. Japan has been more willing than Europe to maintain large budget deficits, but the problem is that this has resulted in a huge debt-to-GDP ratio. The Japanese would like to tighten fiscal policy, starting with the consumption tax hike scheduled for October 2019. However, this may require the economy to have an even larger current account surplus, which can only be achieved if the yen weakens further. This, in turn, suggests that the Bank of Japan will not abandon its yield curve control policy anytime soon. We were not in the least bit surprised this week when Governor Kuroda poured cold water on the idea that the BoJ was contemplating raising either its short or long-term interest rate targets. The bottom line is that thinking about global imbalances solely in terms of current account positions is not enough. One should also think about the distribution of aggregate demand across the world. Countries with demand to spare such as the United States can afford to run current account deficits, while economies with insufficient demand such as the euro area and Japan should run current account surpluses. The key market implication is that interest rates will remain structurally higher in the United States, which will keep the dollar well bid. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 This is partly because it can take a while for additional capital spending to raise aggregate supply. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the Fed's policy tightening. However, we do not think he will be able to influence policy in a dovish fashion this cycle. Trump has suggested that many nations are manipulating their exchange rates to the detriment of the U.S. We do not see the U.S. as having the same capacity to force large exchange rate appreciation for its trading partners as it previously did. We expect instead this rhetoric to result in more favorable trade deals for the U.S. As a result, while we believe Trump's rhetoric was the catalyst for a much-needed correction in the dollar, his utterances do not mark the end of the dollar rally for 2018. We have been hedging the dollar's short-term downside by selling USD/CAD. We do not anticipate the BoJ to tweak its YCC policy next week. As a result, we fade the yen's recent strength against the dollar. However, we do believe the global economic outlook warrants staying long the yen against the euro and the Aussie for the remainder of the year. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump has begun to fight back against the impact of his stimulative fiscal policy. Obviously, it is not that he is displeased with the decent growth and job performance of the U.S. Instead, he is not happy that this increase in economic activity and build-up in inflationary pressures is causing the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates faster than he would like, and the dollar to be stronger as well. Despite President Trump's intentions, it is unlikely that he actually has enough levers to push the Fed to conduct easier monetary policy, and it is even more doubtful that he can push the dollar lower by pressuring the euro area, China, and other trading partners to revalue their currencies. The Fed Is No Pushover While BCA has argued that President Trump is unconstrained when it comes to his international agenda, there are certainly large constraints on his domestic agenda. When it comes to the Fed, this constraint is binding, as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 clearly states that the U.S. central bank is a creature of Congress. Moreover, historically, the Fed has been a staunch defender of its independence. As Chart I-1 illustrates, through the post-war period, even when we include the 1970s when former U.S. President Richard Nixon's interferences temporarily eroded the Fed's independence, the U.S. central bank has been among the most fiercely independent monetary guardians in the G-10. Chart I-1The Fed Values Its Independence The 1970s offer a counter-argument to the view that the President has little influence on the Fed. However, Nixon chose Arthur Burns as Fed Chair in 1970 with the goal of maintaining very easy policy. Moreover, Burns continued to target full employment as his priority, which meant inflationary pressures only grew larger in response to the 1973 oil shock. This is in sharp contrast with today's Fed. In opposition to the period prior to the 1977 amendment of the Federal Reserve Act, which required the Fed to "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates," the Fed is now much more focused on controlling inflation - even if this means more frequent large overshoots in unemployment (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Trump's Fed Is Not Nixon's Fed This means that in today's context, the Fed will continue to push rates higher in order to combat inflationary pressures in the U.S. (Chart I-3). Moreover, as Chart I-4 illustrates, our composite capacity utilization measure shows that the U.S. economy is experiencing its tightest conditions since the late 1980s. Historically, such a dearth of economic slack is accompanied by higher interest rates. Chart I-3Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Budding Price Pressures Chart I-4Maximum Pressure... Capacity Pressures That Is This also means that it is highly unlikely the Fed will sit idly by in front of the large amount of fiscal stimulus implemented in the U.S. while the economy is at full employment (Chart I-5). Not since the late 1960s has the U.S. experienced this kind of a policy mix. While in the late 1960s it took some time for inflationary pressures to emerge, they ultimately did with much vigor by 1968. However, for inflation to become as pernicious a force as it was in the 1970s, the Fed had to maintain too-easy monetary policy. With its dual mandate that includes keeping inflation at bay, we doubt the Fed will allow the 1970s experience to repeat itself.1 Chart I-5Trump Will Push Rates Higher While this means that President Trump is unlikely to be able to affect policy this cycle, it does not mean that he has zero levers. He can ultimately change the Fed leadership to find a great dove; however, this will require that he waits until Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's term ends - something not in sight until 2020. And really, who can he find today that is that dovish; we doubt that Paul Krugman will make any Trump shortlist for Fed leadership anytime soon. In the meantime, we would anticipate President Trump to continue to voice his displeasure with the Fed's policy, as at the very least it will give him a culprit to blame in 2020 if the economy does not perform as he has promised. As a result, we remain confident that the Fed is likely to try to follow the path of rate hikes it currently envisions in its latest set of forecasts. As Chart I-6 illustrates, this path for policy remains above the path currently anticipated in the market. Moreover, we do not believe the Fed will tighten more than it currently anticipates only to assert its own independence. For the Fed to deviate from its current interest rate forecast, economic growth and inflationary pressures will also have to significantly deviate from current expectations, not for Trump to grow louder. Chart I-6U.S. Rate Pricing Has Upside Bottom Line: President Trump may express his unhappiness with the Fed's hiking campaign, but he can do little more than complain. For now, he cannot affect monetary policy directly, as the Fed is very independent and is very set on limiting the long-term upside to inflation. Since the White House's policies are inflationary, we expect the Fed to continue to tighten as per its current intended path. Trump will only be able to affect policy in a dovish fashion once he gets to change the Fed's leadership. In the meantime, blaming the Fed is an insurance policy for 2020: if the economy is not as strong as he promised, someone else will be responsible for it. Currency Manipulators? Another issue raised by President Trump has contributed to the recent decline in the dollar: His assertions that various currencies, including the euro, are being manipulated downward. Is there much to this assertion, and can the White House do anything to generate downward pressure on the dollar? Let's begin with China. We have argued that at the very least, the Chinese authorities are facilitating the recent slide in the RMB. As Chart I-7 illustrates, CNY/USD is much softer than implied by the level of the dollar itself. If we want to stretch the argument that one country is pushing down its currency today, it is China. Can President Trump do much about it? For the time being, we doubt it. The White House has announced a flurry of implemented and proposed tariffs on China (Chart I-8), and in the interim, the CNY has not strengthened; it has only weakened. Instead of letting the U.S. bully them on their exchange rate policy, it seems the Chinese authorities are finding other means to alleviate the pain created by U.S. tariffs. Chart I-7China Is Manipulating Its Currency... Chart I-8... And Is Already Facing An Onslaught Of Tariffs... To begin with, the People's Bank of China has injected RMB502 billion into the banking system in recent weeks in order to put downward pressure on overnight rates. Most importantly, earlier this week, it was revealed that the State Council in Beijing would accelerate the issuance of CNY1.4 trillion in local government bonds to support infrastructure. This significant amount of fiscal stimulus may not be enough to prevent China from slowing in response to its own deleveraging effort, it is nonetheless likely to soften the blow to the Chinese economy created by the Trump tariffs. Essentially, we believe that China wants to avoid the shock Japan suffered in the wake of the 1985 Plaza accord. In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and the American public were fed up with the growing Japanese trade surplus with the U.S. The White House started proposing tariffs on Japanese exports and ultimately got Japan to revalue the yen violently. However, this huge yen rally had massively deflationary consequences for Japan. At first, the Bank of Japan responded by cutting rates, inflating the Japanese bubble in the process. Once the bubble popped and the Japanese private sector debt burden was laid bare, the true deflationary impact of the sudden yen revaluation became evident (Chart I-9). To this day, Japan is still dealing with the consequences of these series of policy mistakes. Chart I-9... But It First And Foremost ##br##Wants To Avoid Japan's Fate Today, Chinese policymakers not only benefit from the insight of Japan's disastrous experience, but also they already face an enormous debt problem. China's corporate debt stands at 160% of GDP, versus Japan's corporate debt, which stood at 110% of GDP in 1985 when the yen began appreciating and 135% of GDP in 1989 just before the bubble burst. The deflationary consequences of a large FX revaluation are thus at least as dangerous in China today as they were in Japan in the 1980s. In fact, if China is serious about deleveraging and reforming its economy, it will need a cheap currency to ease the deflationary impact of these domestic economic adjustments. On the political front, the U.S. does not have the same levers on China today as it did on Japan in the 1980s. The U.S. is not a military ally; it does not defend the Middle Kingdom against foreign attacks. However, the U.S. was - and still is - Japan's most important military ally, its protector against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and China today. As a result, while Reagan was able to threaten Tokyo with the removal of the U.S. military umbrella, Trump does not have the same tool when it comes to China. Hence, we continue to expect that the outcome of the China-U.S. trade conflict to more likely result in a renegotiation of bilateral investments, tariffs and quotas than a sharply higher RMB. What about Trump's stance on the euro? After all, the U.S. does remain the EU's most important military ally, and the key financial contributor to NATO. This should count as leverage, no? Politically Europe is not as beholden to the U.S today as it was in the 1980s. As Marko Papic argues in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, the international political order has entered a multipolar state, with various regional powers vying for local dominance. In the 1980s, the world had two poles of power: the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Back then, Moscow constituted a real threat to Western Europe, as Warsaw Pact nations had tanks parked at the EUs border. Today, this is no longer the case. Russia has weakened, its army is technologically beleaguered, and, in fact, Russia is more dependent on the EU than a threat. As a result, the support of the U.S. is not as crucial to Europe as it once was. Moreover, as Marko also argues, global trade is not expanding as fast as it once was. This means that the U.S. allies are not as likely to tolerate a higher exchange rate as they once were. Essentially, in the 1970s and 1980s, Europe was willing to pushup its exchange rates and absorb an immediate negative shock in order to reap the benefits of growing trade later. This is not feasible anymore as future export growth will not be large enough to compensate for the immediate cost of a euro revaluation. This will limit the tolerance of Europeans to pushup the euro just because the U.S. asked them to do so.2 Nonetheless, President Trump is correct to insist that the euro is cheap, and that this is contributing to the huge trade surplus that Europe runs with the U.S. (Chart I-10). However, the euro area does not target a lower exchange rate, and the European Central Bank does not actively sell euros in the open market. Instead, the undervaluation of EUR/USD simply reflects the fact that the ECB continues to conduct very stimulative monetary policy, which is dragging European real rates lower versus the U.S. It is because of this domestic imperative that EUR/USD remains cheap (Chart I-11). Chart I-10European Exports Are ##br##Benefiting From A Cheap Euro.. Chart I-11... But This Cheapness Is A Consequence##br## Of Diverging Monetary Policies However, we think Europe does still need much easier monetary policy than the U.S. because: European growth is lagging that of the U.S. (Chart I-12); The European output gap remains negative, while the U.S.'s is now positive; The U.S. will receive a much larger dose of fiscal stimulus than Europe in 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Growth Still##br## Outperforms Europe's... Chart I-13... And The Relative Fiscal Policy Points##br## To Continued Monetary Divergences This means that we do not expect the euro's long-term undervaluation to get anywhere near corrected this year. In fact, while we have argued that the dollar is likely to experience a correction in the very near term,3 we continue to anticipate that EUR/USD will make deeper lows later in 2018. As we have highlighted, the euro may be cheap on a long-term basis, but it continues to trade at a premium to its short-term drivers (Chart I-14). Moreover, relative inflation between the U.S. and the euro area has been a powerful driver of anticipated monetary policy shifts between these two economies. As a result, relative core inflation has been a good prognosticator of EUR/USD, and currently points to a lower euro (Chart I-15). Therefore, we are not closing our long DXY trade in the face of the dollar's anticipated correction. Instead, we prefer to hedge our risk through this countertrend move by selling USD/CAD. Chart I-14The Euro Is Not A Buy Yet... Chart I-15... And Will Not Become So Until Later This Year Bottom Line: President Trump can call China and Europe currency manipulators if he wants to, but this does not mean he has much leverage over these two economies. China already has a large debt load and is vulnerable to the kind of deflationary shock that Japan endured in the wake of the yen's appreciation following the 1985 Plaza Accord. This limits Beijing's willingness to let the CNY appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is not manipulated per se; its undervaluation only reflects the fact that Europe needs much easier monetary policy than the U.S. This state of affairs is not changing this year. Thus, only once Europe is ready to withstand higher interest rates will the euro's undervaluation disappear. Japan: The End of YCC? Rumors have been circulating this week that the Bank of Japan may tweak its Yield Curve Control Strategy as soon as next week's Monetary Policy meeting. We are skeptical. First, it is true that Japanese wages have been accelerating in response to the tightest labor market conditions in 30 years (Chart I-16). However, Japanese inflation excluding food and energy has again weakened to 0.3%, pointing to the difficulty the country has in achieving its 2% inflation target. Second, economic numbers have been quite mixed. Japanese Manufacturing PMIs have weakened to 51.6 from as high as 54.8, five months ago. Moreover, industrial production has softened, heeding the message from the sagging shipments-to-inventories ratio (Chart I-17). As a result, capacity utilization will remain too low to be consistent with upward risk to core CPI. Chart I-16Strengthening Japanese ##br##Wages Are Inflationary... Chart I-17... But Capacity Utilization Concerns ##br##Cap The Upside To Inflation Third, money growth has also slowed significantly in Japan, and is now at the low end of the post-Abenomics experience (Chart I-18). This weighs on the outlook for both growth and inflation. Fourth, if there were a valid reason to removed YCC it would be if banks were in danger. After all, low rates and a flat yield curve hurt banks' profitability, potentially creating risks to the financial system. However, as Chart I-19 shows, Japanese regional banks have not experienced any meaningful downward pressure on their profits since YCC has been implemented, and are far from generating aggregate losses. Chart I-18Japanese Money Trends Do Not Justify Tweaking YCC Chart I-19YCC Does Not Yet Threaten Japanese Banks Health Fifth, it is customary in Japan policy circles to float trial balloons to test policy ideas. It is very likely that the recent rumors of a tweak to YCC were such a balloon. However, the market impact of this trial was clear: a rallying yen, rising yields and falling equity prices. All these market moves suggest that if YCC was indeed tweaked next week, Japan would experience a violent tightening in monetary conditions - exactly what the BoJ wants to avoid if it ever wishes to hit its 2% inflation target. Moreover, we do not read much into the decline of JGB purchases by the Japanese central bank. The BoJ does not need to buy many JGBs in order to cap Japanese bond yields. Instead, speculators can force JGB yields towards the BoJ's target, on the expectation that if JGB yields deviate too much from this target, the BoJ will force bond prices back to its objective. We think these dynamics are currently at play, explaining why the BoJ has not been buying JPY80 trillion of JGBs per annum. Instead, we think that the BoJ will stay the course with YCC. While Japanese wages are stronger than they have been for 20 years, they are still not consistent with 2% inflation. As such, the BoJ needs to engineer further labor market tightening for inflation to move to target. Even in the U.S., where the economy is not in the thralls of deep-seated deflationary pressures, the job-hoppers are the ones pocketing the lion's share of accelerating wages - not people staying in their current positions (Chart I-20). Since Japanese workers do not tend to switch jobs, the Japanese labor market needs to become a genuine pressure cooker before inflation can rise meaningfully. The BoJ will thus need to maintain very easy monetary policy. Chart I-20You Need To Leave Your Job To Get A Raise As a result, we are not buying into the current rally in the yen versus the dollar. We do believe the yen can continue to perform well this year versus the euro and the AUD, but this is because we expect the U.S. monetary policy to tighten along with China's efforts to de-lever to continue to weigh on EM asset prices, EM economic activity, and thus global trade. In the short term, the yen could correct against these currencies as we continue to foresee a temporary correction in "growth slowdown" trades. But ultimately we expect the yen to continue to rally against the more pro-cyclical euro and Australian dollar. Bottom Line: The BoJ will not adjust YCC next week. Japanese wages may have picked up, but inflation itself is not only still well below target, it has weakened of late. Additionally, economic growth is not strong enough to justify a removal of monetary accommodation, especially as YCC has not negatively affected the health of regional banks. As a result, we recommend investors fade the recent strength in the yen versus the dollar. The yen still has room to rally further against the EUR and AUD over the course of the next six to nine months, but this is a reflection of our stance on global growth and EM asset prices, not a consequence of any anticipated shift in YCC. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Trump: No Nixon Redux", dated December 2, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem", dated July 25, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Reports, "Time To Pause And Breathe" dated July 6, 2018 and "That Sinking Feeling", dated July 13, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Markit Manufacturing PMI came in at 55.5, outperforming expectations. It also increased from last month's reading. However, both services and composite PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 56.2 and 55.9 respectively. Finally, existing home sales surprised to the downside, coming in at 5.38 million. This measure also decreased compared to last month's reading. The DXY has declined by roughly 1.3% this week. We are bearish on the dollar on a tactical basis. Stretched positioning in the USD as well as a respite in the global growth slowdown due to Chinese easing will combine to temporarily weigh on the greenback. However, we believe the DXY will resume its uptrend before year-end, as a combination of fed tightening, slower global growth, and positive momentum will help the dollar on a cyclical basis. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The Euro Recent data in the Euro area has been mixed: Manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 55.1, and increasing from last month's reading. Moreover the German IFO, also outperformed expectations, coming in at 101.7. However, both Markit Composite PMI and Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 54.3 and 54.4 respectively, while also decreasing from last month's numbers. Finally, Belgian Business confidence showed a deceleration in the month of July. EUR/USD is flat this week, as the surge at the beginning of the week was counteracted by a relatively dovish announcement by the ECB yesterday. On a 6-month basis we are bearish on the euro, given that the cumulative tightening by both the People's Bank of China and the Fed will still combined in a toxic cocktail for global growth, and hence, drag the euro lower in the process. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The Yen Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The Nikkei Manufacturing PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 51.6. It also decreased from last month's reading of 53. However, the All Industry Activity Index month-on-month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.1%. USD/JPY has declined by roughly 1.5%, partly due to the fall in the U.S. dollar, but also because of the newly perceived hawkish tone by the BoJ. On a short-term basis, we continue to be bullish on the yen against the euro and the Aussie, as we expect Chinese deleveraging to add volatility to the markets. On a longer-term basis, however, we are bearish on the yen, as the BoJ will have to remains very accommodative in order to meet its inflation mandate. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 British Pound Recent data in the U.K. has been positive: Public sector net borrowing outperformed expectations, coming in at 4.530 billion pounds. This measure also increased relatively to last month's number. Moreover, mortgage approvals also surprised to the upside, coming in at 40.541 thousand. This measure also increased relatively to last month's number. Finally, the CBI Distributed Trades Survey also surprised positively, coming in at 20%. GBP/USD has risen by nearly 1.5% this week. Overall, we are cyclically bearish on the pound, as the uncertainty of the Brexit negotiations continue to weigh on capital flows into the U.S. Moreover, the rise in the dollar will add further downward pressure to cable. That being said, the pound could have some upside against the euro, given that the U.K. is less exposed to global trade and industrial activity than its continental counterpart. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Australian Dollar Recent data in Australia has been mixed: Headline inflation came in at 2.1%, underperforming expectations. However, this measure increased from 1.9% the month before. Meanwhile, the RBA trimmed mean CPI yearly growth came in at 1.9%, in line with expectations and with the previous' month number. AUD/USD has rallied by roughly 1.7%, in part due to the fall in the dollar, as well as in response to positive news in China concerning the issuance of infrastructure bonds. Despite these temporary positives, we continue to be cyclically bearish on the Aussie, as a slowdown in the Chinese industrial cycle will weigh heavily on this currency, given its high exposure to base metals, and given the continued presence of slack in the Australian labor market. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 New Zealand Dollar NZD/USD has risen by roughly 1.7% this week, as trade tensions have eased following the announcement by President Trump that the EU and the United States would collaborate to eliminate tariffs between the two economies. Moreover, Chinese authorities have implemented some easing at the margin, which should provide a temporary boost to high beta economies like New Zealand. However, on a cyclical basis, we remain bearish on the kiwi, as the tightening campaign in China is likely to continue. Moreover, a tightening fed will continue to put pressure on EM dollar borrowers, affecting New Zealand in the process, given its high exposure to global growth. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Canadian Dollar Recent data in Canada has been mixed: Headline inflation came in at 2.5%, surprising to the upside. It also increased from last month's reading. Moreover, retail sales and retail sales ex-autos month-on-month growth both outperformed expectations, coming in at 2% and 1.4% respectively. However, core inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3%. This measure stayed stable compared to last month's reading. USD/CAD has declined by roughly 1.4% this week. In our view, the best cross to play what we believe will be a temporary correction in the greenback is to short USD/CAD, as the Canadian dollar trades at a deep discount to fair value, while short positions are likely overextended. Moreover, the BoC is the only nation among the G10 commodity producers raising rates, adding another boon for the Lonnie. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Swiss Franc EUR/CHF is down roughly 0.5% this week, especially after the perceived dovish tone to the ECB's press conference on Thursday. On a short-term basis, we are bearish on this cross, given that tightening by the fed and a sluggish Chinese economy should cause a risk-off period in markets, creating a supportive environment for the franc. On the other hand, we are bullish on this cross on a longer-term basis, given that the SNB will likely continue with its ultra-dovish monetary policy, as well as currency intervention to make sure that an appreciating franc does not derail its campaign to reach its inflation target. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Norwegian Krone USD/NOK is down roughly 0.7% this week. Overall we continue to be bullish on this cross, given that the tightening of the fed should increase the interest rate differential between Norway and the U.S., counteracting any further appreciation in oil prices due to OPEC output cuts. That being said, we are positive on the NOK within the commodity complex, as Norway will likely be less affected than New Zealand or Australia by the tightening campaign in China, given that oil has a lower beta to Chinese growth than other commodities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Swedish Krona EUR/SEK is down by slightly more than 1% this week, falling substantially after the interest rate decision by the ECB. We are bullish on the krona on a long-term basis, as inflationary pressures continue to be strong in Sweden, and the Riksbank has become progressively more hawkish. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades