Monetary

Highlights U.S. credit growth is set to improve as capex has more upside and households benefits from a positive backdrop. The U.S. has substantially more room to increase leverage than the rest of the G10, pointing toward further monetary divergences. The euro is not very cheap and is trading at a significant premium to forward rate differentials. It is thus at risk if U.S. rates can rise vis-à-vis Europe. Chinese underlying inflation is becoming elevated, which could prompt additional tightening by the PBoC. Moreover, Xi Jinping's speech this week suggests a move away from the debt-fueled, investment-led growth model. The AUD is at risk. Feature A general lack of credit growth has been one of the key factors hampering both broader growth and inflation in the U.S. Not only has this muted activity and weak pricing pressure kept the Federal Reserve on the easier side of policy, the absence of lending growth has further depressed real rates as demand for loanable funds remains low. Can credit pick up from here, and what are the implications for the USD? Room For Optimism There are good reasons to lean a bit more on the positive side regarding the U.S. credit growth outlook. As Chart I-1 illustrates, U.S. commercial and industrial loan growth seems to be rebounding. Confirming that this impulse could gain momentum, it follows an easing in lending standards and a pick-up in durable goods orders - two leading indicators of business borrowings. Household debt is also showing some signs of revival. While the annual growth rate of household borrowings from banks has yet to trough, the annualized quarterly growth rate has picked up significantly - a development that tends to precede accelerations in the yearly measure. Moreover, this improvement is broad based among all the key components of household borrowings (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Upside For U.S. C&I Loans... Chart I-2... And For Household Debt As Well This has positive implications for U.S. nonfinancial private credit, which has been in the process of forming a shallow bottom relative to GDP. Moreover, based on the low level of debt servicing costs for both households and businesses, this trend has room to develop (Chart I-3). However, most of the increase in the debt-to-GDP since 1994 has been caused by financial engineering, with firms swapping equity for debt in their capital structure, and has therefore not lifted domestic demand nor created inflationary pressures. However, we posit that this phenomenon is toward its tail end, and that additional debt accretion could have a meaningful impact on growth. Why? On the business front, capex - an essential but volatile component of aggregate demand - is set to accelerate further. Business investment is led by firms' capex intentions, a series that has surged since the summer of 2016 (Chart I-4, top panel). Confirming the message from this indicator, profits from U.S.-listed businesses have also sharply rebounded, a signal that leads capex by a year, as highlighted last Monday by Anastasios Avgeriou, who heads BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service (Chart I-4, bottom panel).1 Chart I-3The U.S. Has Room To Relever Chart I-4Capex Outlook Looks Good On the household front, three factors support our assessment: First, household nominal and real wages and salaries should enjoy further upside as the labor market remains very healthy. This means more consumption and more capacity to accumulate debt, especially as household financial obligations remain near multi-generational lows (Chart I-5). In fact, U.S. real median household income already hit an all-time high in 2016. Chart I-5Supports To Household Consumption Second, household confidence is still near record-high levels, a factor which tends to lead credit growth and consumption. Optimistic households are more likely to spend their income gains and buy durable goods like houses or apartments, especially as the household formation rate has regained vigor. Third, U.S. net wealth has hit 430% of disposable income, a record, which will keep supporting consumption. As households see their net worth increase, they can boost consumption and debt as their leverage ratios improve, especially when financial obligation ratios are as low as they are today. These factors point toward a continued increase in the indebtedness of the U.S. private sector, one which this time we anticipate will add to demand through investments, real estate purchases and general consumption. This also means that real rates are likely to experience upside. More debt-fueled aggregate demand implies more demand for loanable funds, and thus higher real rates. In an economy operating near full capacity, it can also lift inflation. Tax cuts and fiscal stimulus would only be a bonus in this environment. This should give the Fed room to increase interest rates in line with its dot plot, or more than the two-and-a-half hikes priced into the OIS curve over the next two years. However, as 2017 has vividly demonstrated, movements in U.S. rates alone are not enough to make a call on the U.S. dollar. One needs to have a sense of how U.S. rates could evolve vis-à-vis the rest of the world. In the context of debt accumulation, we are optimistic that the U.S. could experience a re-leveraging relative to the rest of the G10, putting upward pressures on U.S. real rates relative to the rest of the world. To begin with, U.S. non-financial private credit stands at 150% of GDP, a drop of 20% of GDP since its peak in 2009. The rest of the G10 has not experienced the same extent of post-financial crisis deleveraging, and nonfinancial private credit there still hovers around 175% of GDP (Chart I-6). Today, the indebtedness of the U.S. relative to other advanced economies is near its lowest levels of the past 50 years. Debt levels are obviously not the only consideration; the ability to service that debt also must enter the equation to judge the capacity of an economy to accumulate debt relative to the rest of the world. Currently, according to the BIS, the debt-service ratios of the U.S. nonfinancial private sector still stand well below the GDP-weighted average of the rest of the G10 (Chart I-7). This also highlights that the U.S. has plenty of room to have both higher debt accumulation and higher real rates than the rest of the G10. Chart I-6U.S. Vs. G10: Debt Upside Chart I-7Lower Private Sector Debt-Servicing Costs In The U.S. This should support the dollar in 2018. As Chart I-8 shows, 10-year bond yield differentials between the U.S. and other large advanced economies lead tops in the dollar by one year. To highlight this relationship, this chart de-trends the DXY by plotting it as a deviation from its 10-year moving average. Not only does the current trend in real rate differentials already point to a higher dollar, but room for more debt accumulation in the U.S. relative to the rest of the G10 supports the notion that the elevated level of spreads could even expand, implying the era of monetary divergence has yet to end. As we highlighted last week, the dollar may not be as expensive as seems at first glance. We have expanded on our 'modelization' exercise this week, using methods employed by the Swiss National Bank to incorporate the Balassa -Samuelsson effect.2, 3 This metric, which incorporates the relative price of manufactured goods in each economy, further confirm our assessment from last week that the dollar is not expensive enough to warrant a sell-signal (Chart I-9). Thus, with competitiveness a non-issue for the dollar for now, the USD is likely to be able to take advantage of potentially supportive real interest rate spreads. Chart I-8Real Rates Point To A Higher Peak For The USD Chart I-9U.S. Only Sightly Expensive On the technical side, our U.S. Dollar Capitulation Index hit very depressed levels earlier this year, but is now rebounding. Crucially, it has moved meaningfully back above its 13-week moving average, an event which normally characterizes uptrends in the dollar (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Dollar: From Bearish To Bullish Mood Bottom Line: The U.S. economy looks set to enjoy an episode of rising debt supporting increasing economic activity and higher rates as capex should grow further and a supportive backdrop continues to emerge for households - whether or not tax cuts happen. Because the U.S. private sector has comparatively healthy balance sheets relative to the rest of the G10, this means that U.S. re-leveraging should outpace the rest of the world. Even if this U.S. re-leveraging is only a cyclical phenomenon and not a resumption of the debt super-cycle, it would imply that monetary policy divergences have yet to reach their apex, and thus the dollar could experience additional upside. Even Against The Euro? We tend to view the euro as the anti-dollar. It is the main vehicle to play both uptrends and downtrends in the dollar and it is also the most liquid instrument, backed with an economy similarly sized as the U.S. Thus, the views expressed above would imply a negative slant on EUR/USD. Such a framework can give an impetus to a EUR/USD view, but is also not enough. Indeed, factors more specific to this pair argue that EUR/USD does have downside. When it comes to valuations, using the SNB's methodology, the EUR/USD is more or less the mirror image of the DXY. This pair is slightly cheap, essentially within the statistical definition of fairly valued (Chart I-11). Thus, valuations alone are fully neutral for the euro. This means EUR/USD remains prisoner to relative interest rate dynamics. On this front, a key driver of this pair paints a risky picture for euro bulls. The 1-year/1-year forward risk-free rate spread between the euro area and the U.S. has been a reliable guide of the EUR/USD's trend for the past 12 years. Yet, the euro's rally has not been matched by a similar move in this spread. As a result, the gap between the currency pair and its rates-implied fair value is at its highest since the summer of 2014 (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Euro: Not That Cheap Chart I-12Forward Interest Rates Point To Euro Risk But then again, the differential between the European and U.S. 1-year/1-year forward risk-free rate is at its lowest ever over the time frame of this chart. However, it was even lower than current levels in 1999 and 1997. This suggests that if the U.S. can re-leverage relative to the rest of the G10, the spread could grow as negative as it was in these two previous instances. Supporting this assessment, we anticipate U.S. inflation to outperform euro area measures going forward. Last week, we explored the reasons why we see an upcoming uptick in U.S. inflation next year: U.S. financial conditions have eased, American velocity of money has increased, pipeline inflationary pressures are growing and underlying wage growth seems to be improving.4 Meanwhile, European financial conditions have tightened, especially against the U.S., which historically leads to an underperformance of European inflation measures. Very importantly, the euro area core CPI diffusion index has rolled over and is now below 50%, suggesting that euro area core CPI has limited upside (Chart I-13). This means potential downside vis-à-vis the U.S. and room for upside in U.S. rates relative to the euro area, especially as the European Central Bank is likely to craft its message carefully next week when it announces the tapering of its asset purchases, to prevent quick upward movement in interest rate expectations. Additionally, the dollar is still quite under-owned by speculators relative to the euro. Our favorite positioning measure, which sums long bets in the euro with short bets on the DXY - two equivalent wagers - continues to hover near record-high levels, suggesting potential downside in EUR/USD (Chart I-14). This continues to highlight the risks to the euro created by a repricing of the Fed. Chart I-13Euro Area CPI Peaking? Chart I-14Excess Bullishness In Euro Intact Bottom Line: The euro is obviously at risk if the dollar gets lifted by rising economic activity and indebtedness in the U.S., even if this cyclical upswing in debt does not represent a resumption of the debt super-cycle. Moreover, 1-year/1-year forward rates differentials point to heightened EUR/USD vulnerability, especially if U.S. inflation bottoms relative to the euro area. Moreover, long euro bets have yet to be washed out, deepening the EUR/USD's vulnerability. A Few Words On China Chart I-15China: Good Reasons For Policy Tightening Despite a marginal slowdown in Chinese real GDP growth and slightly disappointing industrial production and fixed asset investment numbers for the third quarter, some key Chinese economic activity metrics have been very robust. Imports are growing at a 19% annual pace, credit growth continues to outperform expectations and electricity production and excavator sales remain robust. Should this make investors bullish on China plays? In our view, two key risks lurk on the horizon. The first is monetary tightening. Pricing pressures in China are growing and are looking increasingly genuine. As Chart I-15 shows, core CPI is clocking in at 2.3%, the highest level since 2010-2011, a level which in the past prompted monetary tightening by the Chinese authorities. Additionally, services inflation - a purely domestic sector and thus one reflective of domestic inflationary pressures - is now above 3% and accelerating. Also, PPI has re-accelerated to 6.9%, pointing to a paucity of deflationary forces in the Chinese economy that could potentially give the People's Bank of China the green light to tighten further. We would expect the rise in the Shibor 7-day rate to continue and monetary conditions, which have been tightening since the end of 2016, to become an even bigger handicap in the future. The second risk lies around the Communist Party Congress underway in Beijing. Xi Jinping's marathon speech highlighted his vision for Chinese socialism in a new era. Xi is very clearly dedicated to the primacy of the Chinese communist party. He did highlight, however, that the new principal problem for the Chinese population is the need for a better life, with less imbalances, less inequalities. This fits with his previously revealed policy preferences. As Matt Gertken, who heads the Asian efforts on our Geopolitical Strategy team, has shown, Xi's administration has massively increased spending to protect the environment and increased financial regulation (Table 1).5 These preferences fit in the optic of addressing China's new principal problems: too much pollution and too much debt. Table 1Fiscal Priorities Of Recent Chinese Presidents Moreover, the continued fight against corruption also fits into that mold. It is a key tool to maintain the legitimacy of the Communist party, and a popular way to address some of the inequalities and imbalances plaguing China today. What does this mean? China has continued to accumulate debt over the past 10 years, with debt to GDP increasing by nearly 120% between 2008 and 2017 (Chart I-16). If a window is opening to tighten monetary policy because inflationary pressures are growing while there is political will to combat inflation and imbalances, it is likely that investment - which pollutes heavily - and debt - a byproduct of large capex programs - could be curtailed. Moreover, the Chinese government still has the wherewithal to support aggregate economic activity through fiscal stimulus. In addition, in the context of the above, much fiscal stimulus could be deployed to fight pollution and decrease inequalities by supporting households. This means that while Chinese GDP growth is unlikely to weaken substantially, the capex intensity of the economy could decrease. So would imports of raw materials and capital goods. As a result, this could be a very negative environment for metals. Metals prices have rebounded sharply since 2016 as Chinese investment has increased. But now that policy could be tightened further and that Xi's new administration has more freedom to move away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, the rally in metals could be at risk. Copper, a bellwether for the metals complex, has surged nearly 70% since 2016, and bullish sentiment on the red metal is now at levels historically associated with imminent corrections (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Is This What Deleveraging Looks Like? Chart I-17Tighter Policy And A Reform Push Put Metal At Risk This means that currencies for which metals prices are a key driver of terms of trade are at great risk, specifically the BRL, the CLP and the AUD. Moreover, the latter is expensive, having recently been buoyed by some positive economic numbers, and is now widely owned by very bullish investors. We have a short sell AUD/USD at 0.79 and our short AUD/NZD trade at 1.11 was triggered following the Labor/NZ First/Green coalition announced Thursday in New Zealand. Bottom Line: Chinese authorities are set to tighten monetary conditions further as domestic inflationary pressures are growing. Moreover, while short on details, this week's speech by Xi Jinping at the opening of the 19th Communist Party Congress in Beijing seemed to confirm that addressing imbalances, inequalities, and environmental problems will be a key objective of this administration. This points toward a less debt-/investment-driven economic model - at least until deflationary problems re-emerge. While overall GDP growth could be supported by targeted fiscal support, investment plays linked to Chinese capex and real estate could suffer. The AUD is at risk, and we are entering our proposed short AUD/NZD trade. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, titled “Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives” dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 The Balassa Samuelson effect is an empirical observation that countries with higher productivity tend to experience an appreciating trend in there real exchange rate. Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Is The Dollar Expensive?”, dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Samuel Reynard, “What Drives the Swiss Franc?” Swiss National Bank Working Papers (2008 – 14). 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Is The Dollar Expensive?”, dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled “How To Read Xi Jinping’s Party Congress Speech”, dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1 Chart II-2 U.S. data was mixed: Last week's CPI releases showed that inflation disappointed in September, with headline CPI increasing by only 2.2%, below the expected 2.3%; and Core CPI coming in at 1.7%, in line with expectations; However, long-term TIC data showed a large inflow of funds of USD 67.2 bn, much larger than the expected USD 14.3 bn. The labor market continues to tighten with initial jobless claims and continuing claims dropping to 222,000 and 1.888 million respectively. The DXY has rebounded this week on this news, and also helped by a somewhat disappointing ZEW survey from the euro area, but pared its gains on Wednesday. Regardless, positive developments in the U.S. fiscal space and disappearing slack will provide a tailwind for the greenback. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day -August 25, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3 Chart II-4 Data from the euro area has been mixed: Industrial production grew at an annual rate of 3.8% in August; The trade balance contracted to EUR 16.1 bn from EUR 23.2 bn on a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, but improved on a seasonally-adjusted basis. The final estimate for core CPI hit 1.1%, in line with expectations; The ZEW Survey dropped and underperformed expectations; Despite largely weak data, the euro has pared all of last week's losses. Markets may be pricing in Catalan developments as a bullish case. The Spanish government has threatened to enact Article 155 of the constitution if Catalonia does not comply, which will give Spain the authority to take measures to ensure compliance by the rogue region. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Bank lending outperformed expectations, growing at a 3% year-on-year pace. Machinery orders yearly growth also outperformed to the upside, coming in at 4.4% However, the annual growth of both imports and exports underperformed expectations and declined significantly from last month, coming in at 12% and 14.1% respectively. The yen has remained relatively flat these past two weeks. Overall, we expect USD/JPY to have additional upside, given that the U.S. OIS curve is not pricing in enough rate hike over the next 2-years. Ultimately, the driver of USD/JPY will simply be U.S. rates as Japanese 10-year rates are capped near 0%. This situation is not likely to change any time soon, as the Japanese economy is still hampered by very low inflation. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day -August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Average hourly earnings outperformed expectations, growing at a 2.2% pace from a year ago. Both headline and core inflation came in line with expectations at 3% and 2.7% respectively. However, both retail sales and retail sales ex-fuel growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.2% and 1.6% respectively. Overall, we do not expect much more upside for the pound relative to the U.S. dollar, given that there is already a hike priced for November. At this point, the economic situation does not warrant any more hikes beyond just removing the emergency measures implemented after the Brexit fallout. Furthermore inflation has stopped climbing, and could start to come down in the coming months as the effects of the currency dissipate. Finally, Brexit negotiations have hit a bit of a temporary impass. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9 Chart II-10 The AUD has not seen much action this week. The RBA minutes highlighted that "slow growth in real wages and high levels of household debt were likely to be constraining influences". This is largely in line with our argument that spare capacity is limiting wage growth and inflation in the economy. Going forward, China remains a risk to our view, with the most recent import figures having provided a welcomed fillip to the AUD. Nevertheless, remarks by RBA Governors will limit the upside in the AUD. Expectations of a rate hike by the RBA depend upon growth numbers, which are unlikely to be achieved given the current trajectory of wages and consumer spending. Furthermore, high underemployment in the economy also remains a drag on spending, dampening the positive effect of a strong job report. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11 Chart II-12 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Electronic card retail sales year-on-year growth declined form 4.4$ to 2.9%. Business NZ PMI softened from 57.9 to 57.5. However, headline inflation came in at 1.9%, rising from the previous month reading of 1.7% and outperforming expectations. The kiwi sold off by almost 2% yesterday, as Jacinda Ardern was elected as the new prime minister of New Zealand. The market is now pricing the risk that the Labor party, which Ardern leads, could change the mandate of the central bank from just targeting inflation to also seeking full employment. Moreover, Labor and its coalition partner, NZ First, want to curtail immigration, one of the tailwind to New Zealand growth. These development would structurally limit the upside for kiwi rates, acting as a headwinds to the New Zealand dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13 Chart II-14 The CAD has been somewhat strong recently due to developments in the oil market. KSA-Russia support for an extension of supply cuts to OPEC 2.0, as well as developments in Iraq, have pointed to an increase in prices. While the path for Canadian interest rates seem fairly priced, oil prices could buoy the CAD. Risks surrounding NAFTA remain, as President Trump stays inflexible with regards to tariffs, although this is likely to have a greater effect on Mexico than on Canada. Furthermore, albeit still in its infancy Morneau's tax plan, which is anticipated to mostly affect the richest of small business, could have an effect on investment intentions. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15 Chart II-16 Recent data in Switzerland has surprised to the upside: The unemployment rate decreased from 3.2% and 3.1%, outperforming expectations. Producer and import prices yearly growth came in at 0.8%, also surprising to the upside. Finally, the trade balance also outperformed, coming in at 2.918 billion dollars for September. It seems that the fall in the franc has been very positive to the Swiss economy. Overall, it would be difficult to see much more upside in EUR/CHF, as the euro already reflects euro area positives. That being said, we are reticent to be outright bearish on this cross as the economic data is still too weak for the SNB to change its monetary policy stance. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17 Chart II-18 Recent data in Norway has been negative: Manufacturing yearly output growth underperformed expectations, contracting at 5.7%. Both core and headline inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 1% and 1.6% against expectations of 1.2% and 1.7% respectively. Finally, the Norwegian trade balance declined from 12.4 billion dollars to 9.2 billion dollars USD/NOK has risen 3% since September, even as oil prices have continued their path upward. This was first and foremost reflective of the higher probability of rate hikes in the U.S. in December. Additionally, the recent Norwegian inflation and trade balance numbers are showing that the krone rebounds has tightened monetary conditions in this Scandinavian economy. Overall, we remain bullish on USD/NOK and bearish on EUR/NOK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19 Chart II-20 The most recent inflation data was slightly weak, with CPI increasing by 0.1% monthly, and 2.1% yearly. Unemployment worsened as the rate rose to 6.2% from 6%. The krona depreciated against the euro on the news, but was flat against the dollar. Despite this temporary setback, PMIs are still perky across the board, and credit is hooking up. China and Europe's recent performance has likely provided a tailwind for growth, which should translate into higher inflation as capacity utilization is extremely tight. Furthermore, the depreciation of the SEK since the beginning of September has eased monetary conditions, making way for the central bank to begin a tightening process in the wake of the ECB's tapering program. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

One of BCA's long-standing clients, Ms. Mea, recently paid us a visit at our Montreal office. Ms. Mea is an experienced and successful investor who has been reading different BCA products for many years. She noted that over the years she has both agreed and disagreed with our market views, but that she appreciates our thematic approach including themes, analysis and views, as they are important to her investment process. Like many of our clients, Ms. Mea has been disappointed by the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team's EM/China call, which has not been correct over the past 18 months. My team and I spent a few hours with Ms. Mea detailing our views and methodology. Despite some tough discussions, she said she found the dialogue valuable. Reflecting on our meeting, I thought it would be beneficial to share the key points with all of EMS clients. This report is a summary of that. Ms. Mea and I agreed to continue the debate as the story plays out, so I will be meeting with her occasionally in Europe when I travel there. Ms. Mea: Clearly your recommended strategy has been wrong for some time. I am aware that your negative view on EM/China and strategy was right and profitable from 2011 until early 2016. Nevertheless, since early last year EM risk assets have rallied considerably, and not participating in this rally has been painful - not to mention being short EM risk assets. For our global equity funds, underweighting EM within the global universe did not hurt performance in 2016. However, this year the EM equity benchmark has considerably outperformed the global averages (Chart I-1). So, what has gone wrong, and why haven't you changed your view already? Chart I-1EMS's Big Picture Asset Allocation Strategy: EM Relative To DM Stock Prices Answer: My objective today is not to dispute your comments - my view and investment strategy have clearly gone wrong. Rather, I would like to highlight what has gone wrong as well as elaborate on my methodology and thought process. Let me be clear, if I thought in 2016 or early 2017 that the market would rally for more than six months and - in the case of EM equities - by more than 20%, I would have recommended clients to play this rally regardless of my big picture themes and views. The same is true today. My general view has been based on two pillars: Chinese growth and Federal Reserve policy/the U.S. dollar. 1. The first pillar of my argument has been that China's growth improvement would prove unsustainable due to lingering credit imbalances/excesses. In the April 13, 2016 report,1 I laid out the case that China's 2015-16 fiscal stimulus of RMB 850 billion would be offset by a potential slowdown in credit growth from an annual growth rate of 11.5% to 9-9.5%. Chart I-2China: Borrowing Costs Have Been Rising This thesis of credit growth deceleration was based on the natural tendency of credit growth to gravitate toward nominal GDP growth, especially since the credit-to-GDP ratio had massively overshot in the preceding seven years. Besides, since 2013 high-profile policymakers in China had been talking about the need for deleveraging, containing financial excesses, and not repeating the mistakes of 2009-2010, when money and credit was allowed to run at an extremely strong pace. In first half of 2016, I downplayed the recovery in money and credit aggregates arguing that they are temporary and unsustainable. When a country has a lingering credit bubble - which has been the case in China, I am biased to downplay upticks in money and credit growth and easing in monetary policy. At the same time, I put a greater emphasis on both monetary tightening and slowdown in money/credit when the economy suffers from credit excesses. The opposite is also true in cases where there are no excesses/imbalances. Since November 2016, the People Bank of China (PBoC) has been tightening liquidity and pushing money market rates and corporate bond yields higher (Chart I-2). This has been taking place in addition to regulatory tightening on both bank and shadow banking activities. As a result, I have been predicting that regulatory and liquidity tightening amid lingering credit and speculative excesses would weigh on money, credit and capital spending. Importantly, I reckoned that financial markets would be forward-looking and would reverse their rally in anticipation of weaker growth down the road instead of reacting to robust - yet backward looking - growth data. Indeed, money and credit growth have already slowed to all-time lows (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, broad economic growth has not slowed (Chart I-4). This has also been true for China's impact on the rest of the world - the mainland's imports have remained robust (Chart I-5). Chart I-3China: Money And Credit Aggregates Chart I-4China: Business Cycle Perspective Chart I-5China: Money Impulses And Imports Not only have I been surprised by the mainland economy's ability to withstand the slowdown in money/credit so far, but I have also been caught off guard by how financial markets have shrugged off the rise in onshore interest rates and the deceleration in money/credit. That said, liquidity tightening works with a time lag. The fact that it has not yet had an impact on the real economy does not mean it won't going forward. 2. The second pillar of my view has been that the Fed's dovish stance would prove transitory. The global market rally began in February 2016 when the Fed sounded dovish in the face of a surging U.S. dollar, collapsing commodities prices, very weak global trade and plunging global risk assets. Remarkably, global growth and corporate profits have recovered very strongly, the U.S. dollar has weakened considerably and commodities and global tradable goods prices have rebounded. As such, I expected that U.S. interest rate expectations would move higher, dampening the carry trade. Unfortunately, markets' reactionary functions does not always follow a symmetrical logic. The decline in U.S. inflation rate amid a weak dollar, rising import prices and robust U.S. growth - especially the tight labor market and some wages pressures (Chart I-6) - has puzzled me. Ms. Mea: Why have you disregarded the clear improvements in EM profits and global trade in 2017? Answer: I have been aware of improving economic data and corporate profits. Yet, these types of data are backward looking and are not a guarantee of future trends. Even though the released economic data and corporate profits have been strong, our forward-looking indicators for both EM and China have been heralding and continue to point to a major downtrend in EM profits (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Subtle Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Chart I-7EM Profits Are At Risk Importantly, I presume stock prices lead profits. Hence, it is dangerous to turn bullish when forward-looking indicators that lead profits are already flashing red. These are empirical indicators and have a great track record. As such, I have placed substantial weight on them rather than on backward-looking economic and profit data. Since early 2017, I have been facing the following dilemma: Should I change my view based on strong, yet backward-looking, profit data, or remain cautious based on forward-looking growth indicators as well as our big-picture themes. I chose the latter, which in retrospect was wrong. Looking back, the biggest mistake I made was putting little weight on how markets have been trading. EM and global stocks continue to trade as they would in a genuine bull market: they have looked past negative news and rallied a lot in response to positives. Ms. Mea: You mentioned big-picture themes. Can you elaborate on your framework and methodology? Answer: At the core of my analytical framework lies investment themes. I formulate these themes based on a series of in-depth research reports. These themes have multi-year relevance - I expect them to have staying power beyond one year. These themes represent an anchor to my view and strategy. Without anchor themes, I would tend to change my views back and forth based on fluctuations in economic data or swings in financial markets. Having established themes, my team and I monitor cyclical data, market dynamics/signposts and any type of evidence to prove or refute those established themes. Clients have recently been asking why I only show charts/evidence that confirm my view, and rarely entertain the alternative scenario. Indeed, there are always contradictory signals, signposts and data that I identify every week. Yet, I still choose to show those that support my ongoing themes and views. Why? Because I opt to convey a well-argued coherent message to my clients. In this context, I use the limited client-time allocated to reading our reports to highlight the reasons supporting my current themes and high-conviction views. It would also be unhelpful for readers if I demonstrate several charts that herald a bullish stance, and then conclude the opposite. If I were to utilize the alternative approach, i.e., present data and evidence on both sides of the debate, the report would be ambiguous. As a result, readers would gain little conviction and would likely be left confused. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages: when the view plays out, investors see the correct angle and, thereby, develop a strong conviction on the strategy, and hopefully act upon it. Conversely, when the view goes wrong, investors typically wish they had seen the opposite side as well. Chart I-8China: No Deleveraging So Far In short, my goal is to leave clients with a clear and well-argued message when I have high conviction. As to conviction level, like all investors, I am dealing with a black box when gauging the outlook for financial markets. I am never 100% certain; I make investment recommendations only when my conviction level is somewhere around 65-75%. Generally, I do not discuss the areas where my conviction level is less than 60%. Less than 60% means "I do not know". An example of this is whether the current tech rally will persist. Importantly, I try to bring to clients' attention data and evidence that they may not be aware of and analytical points that differ from commonly known market narratives. Investors are aware of overall global financial market dynamics and ongoing narratives. My goal is to add value to their knowledge with the framework of thematic investment research, and to highlight new and potentially market moving charts, data and evidence. My major theme on China in the past several years has been the following: Chinese banks have originated too much money, and the corporate sector has taken on a large amount of leverage. This, in tandem with speculative excesses in the shadow banking and property markets, pose considerable downside risks to capital spending growth in the mainland. This is especially the case given that both liquidity and regulatory tightening of banks and non-banks already begun in late 2016. While financial markets, economic data and corporate profits have gone against this theme, this does not mean credit/money excesses in China have disappeared or do not exist. On the contrary, they have gotten even bigger now (Chart I-8, top panel). The Chinese economy has recovered and benefited commodities prices and the rest of EM due to another round of substantial money/credit injection. Broad money and broad credit have surged by about RMB 45-50 trillion since the middle of 2015 - depending on which measure one uses (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In the context of mushrooming leverage, ongoing policy tightening entails a poor risk-reward profile for bullish bets on mainland growth. This is why I am reluctant to abandon this theme and the bearish view. Ms. Mea: What would it take to change your big picture theme on China? To fundamentally reverse my view on China and commodities on a multi-year time line, I would need to reject my theme that China has meaningful credit excesses and imbalances, or buy into the view that these imbalances are a natural outcome of China's excess savings and will never correct. I have strong conviction in my big picture theme and I have not seen convincing arguments to change it. That said, if I come to the conclusion that EM risk assets and China-related plays will rally for six months or longer, I will change the investment strategy and recommend playing that rally. In this case my market strategy will change even though the big picture theme remains intact. As to the relationship between national and household savings, credit, and money, I have elaborated at great length that money creation and credit excesses do not originate from excess savings.2 Hence, it is simply not natural for a country with excess savings to experience and sustain credit bubbles. Importantly, adjustments in terms of credit excesses/deleveraging in China have not even started (Chart 8, top panel). This does not imply that investors should wait until deleveraging ends before turning positive on mainland growth. Markets are forward looking and will bottom when they see the light at the end of tunnel. But it is very dangerous to be positive when the adjustment has not yet began. It appears China's capital spending in general and construction in particular - the most vulnerable and credit-dependent segments - have in recent years been fluctuating in mini-cycles, similar to what played out in Japan during the 1990s and 2000s. I am not suggesting that China resembles Japan entirely, but comparing their mini cycles is a worthwhile exercise. Chart I-9 shows that the Japanese economy, money, credit and share prices were on a rollercoaster ride in the 1990s and 2000s. Notably, the profile of Chinese H shares fits the profile of Japan's stock market during that period (Chart I-10). On average, the recovery phase of these mini-cycles/equity rallies lasted about 20-24 months. Chart I-9Mini-Cycles In Japan In The 1990-2000s Chart I-10Chinese H-Shares Now And Nikkei In 1990s My judgment is that the recovery in the Chinese economy and related financial markets over the past 18 months resembles the mini cycles Japan experienced in the 1990s and 2000s. If so, after the rally in the past 18 months, forward-looking investment strategy should be focused on identifying signposts of a reversal. Consistently, given my bias stemming from our core themes and the fact that financial markets are forward looking and have already rallied a lot, I have been looking for signs of a top in China's business cycle and Asia's trade flows. It is pointless for me to change the view if my bias is that markets will reverse their trend in the next couple of months. Investors who are bullish and long but are somewhat concerned about China's growth sustainability still may want to monitor and be aware when the business cycle and markets will reverse. This is where I believe our research is helpful and relevant to investors with a bullish bias. It is hard to forecast what would be an inflection point to overturn the current financial market trend. It could be an unambiguous message from China's Communist Party Congress in the coming days that containing financial risks - a code word for deleveraging - is a major policy priority, or it could be weak economic data in China, or lower commodities prices and weaker EM currencies, being the flipside of a stronger dollar. Chart I-11China: Beware Of Rising Inflation Ms. Mea: It seems there is no silver lining in your view. Does this mean Chinese policymakers cannot do much to generate a positive outcome for the economy and financial markets? Answer: Chinese policymakers are in a very tough position. Yet it does not mean there is no silver lining. I assign a 20-25% probability that policymakers can stabilize leverage in the economy and financial system without a meaningful growth slump. If this scenario transpires, my negative view on EM and China-related plays will continue to be wrong. There is a 40-45% probability that growth will slump as the authorities focus on deleveraging and structural reforms (allowing markets to play a greater role in resource/capital allocation), and that policy tightening will begin biting. This heralds a deflationary outcome from a cyclical perspective, but it also represents a necessary adjustment to ensure efficiency gains and productivity-led growth over the long run. In fact, this would make me structurally bullish on China's growth again. There is also a 30-35% probability that policymakers - having no tolerance for any kind of growth slump - will continue to stimulate via money/credit and fiscal deficits. The outcome of this scenario will be an inflation outbreak Notably, as I argued in the October 4th 2017 report,3 underlying inflationary pressures are rising, as shown in Chart I-11. Unless growth decelerates meaningfully, inflation will need to be tackled. If not, capital outflows from residents will escalate again, and the currency will come under depreciation pressure given that the deposit rate is at a very low 1.5%. Rising inflation limits policymakers' maneuvering room: they have to tighten and cannot stimulate rapidly and considerably when growth slows. In short, a silver-lining scenario - which would include the authorities curbing out excesses while preserving overall growth, and especially capital spending growth - is always there and is a well-known narrative in the investment community. I do not write about it because I assign a 20-25% probability of it actually panning out. Why not more? Because the imbalances and excesses are currently so large that it will be difficult to contain them without jeopardizing growth. Finally, my view on China does not spread to the entire economy - our focal point has been and remains capital expenditures in general and construction in particular. These areas are being financed by credit, and consume a lot of raw materials and capital goods. Mainland imports - which are heavy in commodities and capital goods (the two account for 95% of total imports) - are the link between mainland investment expenditures and the rest of the world in general, and EM in particular. The latter will suffer if Chinese imports contract. Ms. Mea: It seems your big-picture themes have considerable influence on your views and strategy. How have your big-picture investment themes evolved over time? Last decade, my overreaching theme was that EM and China were structurally sound and that EM/China/commodities were in a bull market. So, I went from being a staunch bull to a resolute bear. I took over the EMS strategy service in 2005, and was bullish on EM, China and commodities up until 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). In 2005, I published an in-depth report arguing that commodities were in secular bull market due to demand from China.4 In April 2006, I pioneered a new theme that in the case of a U.S./DM recession, EM could stimulate and boost domestic demand - an out-of-consensus thesis5 at the time. Having these themes in mind, I recommended upgrading/accumulating Chinese stocks amid the Lehman crisis in the fall of 2008.6 The message was that Chinese policymakers could and would stimulate, and that such stimulus would succeed in lifting Chinese growth, corporate profits, commodities prices and EM risk assets. That was a non-consensus trade at the time, and the exact opposite of my current view. Following the credit boom in EM/China in 2009-10, excesses and imbalances emerged, and I shifted to a negative stance on EM/China in 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). Furthermore, in our June 8, 2010 Special Report titled, 'How to Play EM This Decade,' I made a call on a major top and forthcoming bear market in commodities arguing that the 2010-decade leaders in terms of growth and share price performance would be the healthcare and technology sectors. I speculated that during the current decade mania will unfold either in the technology or heath care sectors or some combination of both. Since 2010, the technology and healthcare equity sectors have been the best equity sectors, while commodities have been the worst performing ones within both the global and EM equity space. Consistent with this theme, I have been overweighing EM technology stocks and bourses where tech has a large weight, such as Taiwan, China and Korea. Besides, since 2010 I have maintained a pair strategy recommendation of being long tech and short materials. Ms. Mea: It seems you have been changing the goalposts lately, using new data on Chinese money and credit instead of relying on traditional ones. Our research is an ongoing effort to understand the macro landscape better. Our objective is always to find new variables and indicators that better lead business cycles and corporate profits while continuing to track the existing ones. Thus, it is not about changing goalposts but refining existing indicators or examining alternative ones that have a better track record. The following aspects have led usintroduce new broad money measures in China: Over the past two years, official M2 has been much weaker than various credit and money measures, as illustrated in the top panel of Chart I-8 on page 8. Broad money, and hence new purchasing power, is created when banks originate credit - by lending to or buying claims on non-bank entities. Therefore, properly measuring broad money is vital to assessing the new purchasing power that is created in the economy. In brief, in 2016 and early this year I relied on China's official broad money M2 measure, but it has underestimated the amount of new purchasing power created in the past two years. This was one of the reasons we misjudged the duration and magnitude of this equity rally. In addition, the regulatory clampdown on banks and non-banks may have prompted them to shift credit assets from off balance sheet to on balance sheet, or vice versa. Banks and shadow bank entities can obscure or hide credit by classifying it differently, but the banking system cannot conceal the amount of money in the system. Therefore, by tracing broad money creation, one can trail new purchasing power originated by banks. For these reasons, we have begun calculating new broad money aggregates for China - we produced our measure of M3 (M2 plus some other banks liabilities that are not included in M2) and credit-money (broad money calculated using the asset side of commercial banks' balance sheets). Chart I-3 on page 3 illustrates that all measures of money and credit have slowed in late 2016 and this year. On balance, having examined various measures of money and credit, including official M2, we have concluded that in the past 12 months money/credit creation has been slowing in China, irrespective of which aggregate we focus on (please refer to Chart I-3 on page 3). Ms. Mea: How do you explain strong September money and credit numbers out of China? Money, credit and business activity data for September were indeed strong, but they should be adjusted for working days. In China, the annual Mid-Autumn Festival fell in October this year versus September over the past several years. During this festival, business activity grinds to a halt for several days. I conjecture that money, credit and growth data out of China and Asia in general was strong in September partially due to the increase in the number of business days in September this year versus September a year ago. We need to wait for October data and average the two months to get a better picture of the trajectory of the business cycle in Asia. Chart I-12China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Declining Ms. Mea: Your view on China, commodities and EM is largely contingent on very weak money growth. Is it possible that the correlation between money and economic growth has diminished or completely broken down in China? The only reason why broad money growth could deviate from nominal GDP growth is due to the rising velocity of money. Let's remind ourselves: Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money. For nominal GDP growth to rise, a considerable decelaration in money supply growth needs to be offset by an even larger acceleration in the velocity of money. It is extremely difficult to forecast velocity of money. I assume money velocity will be steady (constant) and, consequently, nominal GDP growth to be affected primarily by changes in broad money growth. Chart I-12 demonstrates that the velocity of money in China has been declining over the past eight years. So, it would be odd for the velocity of money to suddenly rise going forward, in turn making money growth a less reliable indicator for nominal GDP growth. Overall, while it is always possible that the correlation between money growth and economic activity can break down, it is not something that one can forecast or bet on with high conviction. Chart I-13EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Broad Money And Bank Loan Growth Is Weak Ms. Mea: What about other emerging markets? How dependent are they on China? Where are they in the business cycle? The link from China to other emerging markets is via commodities and EM countries' other exports to the mainland. Even non-commodity countries like Korea and Taiwan sell a lot to China. If Chinese growth decelerates, commodities prices relapse, the U.S. dollar rallies or the RMB comes under selling pressure, the outlook for other EM countries and their risk assets will be dim. I argued that EM currencies, credit, and stocks on aggregate levels are not cheap.7 Segments that appear attractively valued are cheap for a reason, while healthy segments (countries/sectors/companies) are rather expensive. Money and bank loan growth also remain lackluster in the majority of EM, excluding China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-13). The reason is that the banking systems in many of these developing countries have not been restructured and remain sick following years of overextended credit and rising non-performing loans. Therefore, even though EM exports to China and the rest of the world have picked up, there has been little recovery in their domestic demand. If external conditions - exports, exchange rates and borrowing costs - deteriorate anew, EM domestic demand recovery will be derailed. Investors often refer to Russia and Brazil when they cite macro adjustments in developing economies. It is true that Russia and Brazil have already gone through a lot of pain and adjustment, including provisioning for NPLs in their respective banking systems. Nevertheless, financial markets in both countries remain dependent on commodities prices and the U.S. dollar outlook. Barring external shocks, both economies will continue to revive. That said, my big-picture view entails a negative shock to EM sentiment due to China and a rally in the greenback so I cannot turn bullish on them yet. In addition, Brazil's public debt is rising in an unsustailable manner, and political risks remain significant, particularly ahead of next year's elections. It will be hard to boost nominal growth and contain the explosion of public debt without meaningful currency depreciation that reflates the economy. That cannot not bode well for foreign investors in Brazilian markets. Credit excesses continue to linger in some other EM economies, and there has been little adjustments in their leverage even when we remove China, Korea and Taiwan from the aggregate (Chart I-14). All in all, while some EM economies have undergone necessary macro adjustments, the largest economy - China - has not. When China begins its own macro adjustments, shockwaves will likely hit Asian economies and commodities producers. There are not many large developing countries outside Asia that are not raw materials exporters. Ms. Mea: What about the technology sector? It alone has been responsible for a substantial portion of price gains in the EM equity benchmark in this rally. Does your view on China's credit cycle also influence your outlook for technology stocks? Indeed, EM tech stocks have exploded in recent years, accounting for a significant portion of EM share price appreciation. Excluding tech stocks, EM equities have not rallied nearly as much (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Leverage Has Not Diminished Chart I-15EM Equities: Tech Versus Non-Tech Also, Table I-1 reveals that eight out of 11 equity sectors have underperformed the benchmark. Meanwhile, a large share of tech gains has been produced by five or so companies. Table I-1EM Sectors: Only Three Out Of 11 Sectors ##br##Outperformed The Benchmark I have no strong view on the technology sector's absolute performance following the exponential price gains of past years. Overweighting the technology sector has been my recommendation since 2010, as we discussed above, and it has panned out quite well. I still maintain this overweight call, but within the technology sector we prefer semis to internet and social-media stocks. On the second part of your question, my negative view on China's credit cycle does not have direct ramifications for technology stocks, including Chinese ones. Critically, the call on internet- and social media-related companies is a bottom-up call. On the macro level, I can only state the following: It is essential to realize that in the past nine years a lot of new purchasing power in China has been created because of explosive money origination by banks. If money/credit growth structurally downshifts in China in the years ahead, nominal income growth for both households and companies will slow and the growth in their spending power will also moderate. That said, I am not in a position to assess and comment on business model viability and equity valuation levels of internet and social media-related companies like Alibaba, Tencent or Baidu. As to the other two tech heavyweights - Samsung Electronics and TSMC - I continue to recommend an overweight position in semis and other tech stocks that stand to benefit from DM growth. However, I am less certain about their absolute performance given their exponential rally. Chart I-16EMS's Fully-Invested Equity Portfolio ##br##Performance Versus The Benchmark Finally, regardless of my view on EM absolute performance, we always add value to dedicated EM equity and fixed-income investors by selecting countries to overweight and underweight relative to their respective benchmarks. Our country equity allocation strategy has been very successful. Chart I-16 illustrates our country fully-invested equity portfolio performance versus the EM benchmark. The portfolio is built based on our overweight and underweight recommendations on individual bourses, and is assumed to be fully invested. Our country calls have done quite well in the past nine years, producing 58% outperformance versus the benchmark with extremely low volatility. This translates into 520 basis points of annual compound outperformance for nine years. Our recommended country allocation and other equity positions as well as fixed income and currency recommendations are published at the end of each week's report. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses," dated April 13, 2016, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, " China: Deflation Or Inflation?," dated October 4, 2017; link available on page 21. 4 Please refer to the International Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled, "Commodities: Buy On Dips," dated April 2005. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Global Monetary Tightening And Emerging Markets: Is It Different This Time?"dated April 19, 2006. 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Upgrade/Accumulate Chinese Stocks,"dated September 29, 2008. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Looking into 2018, the major risk factors driving gold - inflation and inflation expectations; fiscal and monetary policy; and geopolitics - will, on balance, continue to favor gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. We expect gold will provide a good hedge against rising inflation. However, this will be partially mitigated by Fed rate hikes next year. On the back of tighter U.S. monetary policy, our macroeconomists expect a recession by 2H19, possibly earlier in 2019, which likely would be sniffed out by equity markets as early as 2H18. Our analysis indicates gold will provide a good hedge against this expected recession and the associated equity bear market.1 Lastly, geopolitical risks from (1) U.S.-North Korea tensions, (2) trade protectionism of the Trump administration and (3) ongoing conflicts in the Middle East will support gold prices next year, given the metal's safe-haven properties. Energy: Overweight. At the end of 3Q17, our open energy recommendations were up 45%, led by our long Dec/17 WTI $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl Call spread. We closed out our long Brent recommendations in 3Q17 for an average gain of 116%. (Please see p. 13 for a summary of trades closed in 3Q17). Base Metals: Neutral. Our tactical short Dec/17 copper position ended 3Q17 up 6%. We are placing a trailing stop at $3.10/lb. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long gold portfolio hedge ended 3Q17 up 4.3%. The balance of risks continues to favor this as a strategic position, which we discuss below. Ags/Softs: Neutral. We lifted our weighting on ags - particularly grains - to neutral last week. Our long corn/short wheat position is up 1.2%. Feature Chart of the WeekInflation And U.S. Financial Variables##BR##Explain Gold Prices Inflation and U.S. financial variables - particularly the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB), and real rates - are the main factors explaining the evolution of gold prices (Chart of the Week).2 Subdued inflation and low unemployment - a decoupling of the so-called Phillips Curve relationship that drives central-bank models of the macroeconomy - have dominated the macro landscape this year (Chart 2). We expect that current low inflation, positive growth, and low interest rates will remain in place for the next 12 months (Chart 3). Although economies such as the U.S. are growing above trend, inflation has remained weak due to a redistribution of demand through imports from countries with spare capacity, according to BCA's Global Investment Strategy.3 This is expected to continue in the near term to end-2018. However, we expect the USD to gradually strengthen, as the Fed cautiously normalizes policy rates, while other systemically important central banks remain accommodative relative to the U.S. central bank (Chart 4). Further falls in the unemployment rate will push the U.S. economy into the steep end of the Phillips Curve. Weak capex in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) era means demand for labor will increase as low unemployment - and associated higher wages - encourage higher consumer spending. This will cause inflation to lift next year or early 2019. Chart 2A Decoupling Of The Phillips Curve Relationship? In such an environment, any U.S. tax cuts - which we still expect by the end of 1Q18 - will simply add fuel to the inflationary fire, and lift inflation expectations for next year and beyond. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team puts it, the tax cuts are a "form of modest stimulus ... (which), this far into the economic cycle, could have a significant effect."4 With unemployment at or below levels consistent with full employment in the U.S. and little slack of any sort, it would not take much in the way of fiscal stimulus to further pressure inflation. Chart 3No Pressure From Inflation Or U.S. Financial##BR##Variables...For Now Chart 4A Strengthening U.S. Dollar Will##BR##Keep The Pressure Off Gold Inflation vs. Fed Hikes In the face of the rising inflation we expect next year, gold's appeal will increase. As our previous research reveals, gold's correlation with inflation is strengthened during periods of low real rates, i.e., the difference between nominal rates and inflation. This is a perfect context for gold. However, gold's ability to hedge inflation risks to portfolios will be partially hampered by a more-hawkish Fed. As inflation finally takes off, the Fed will feel confident to hike rates more aggressively. More than anything, this will put a bid under the USD, as U.S. interest-rate differentials vs. other currencies rise in favor of the dollar. In addition, real rates will rise as the Fed gains confidence it can lift policy rates without doing serious harm to the U.S. economy, and follows thru with its normalization. Thus, the gold market will be facing two opposing forces: On the one hand, gold will be an attractive inflation hedge as inflationary pressures build up. On the other, as the Fed begins to tighten to respond to those inflationary pressures, gold will lose its appeal in the face of rising real rates and a strong dollar. Chart 5Fed Will Ease Pressure Off Gold##BR##If It Gets Ahead Of Inflation The timing of the Fed's rate hikes will be critical to the evolution of gold prices next year and beyond. We previously assumed that rate hikes will remain behind wage growth, which would be supportive of gold prices as inflation picks up. However, if the Fed begins hiking ahead of any realized uptick in inflation, this would create a stronger-than-expected headwind for gold (Chart 5). While we expect inflation to take off in 2H18, our House view calls for 2 to 3 hikes by then. This is a risk to our gold view. Longer term, Fed rate hikes could trigger a feedback loop that will make it difficult for the U.S. central bank policy to support low unemployment rates. As real rates rise, increased unemployment will lead households to spend less. Lower demand will force firms to reduce hiring. The accompanying slowing of U.S. growth will disseminate to the rest of the world, pushing the global economy into a shallow recession as early as 2H19. In all likelihood, this higher-inflation/higher-policy-rate period will be sniffed out by equity markets before the economy actually enters a recession, leading to a bear market. Somewhat counterintuitively, this will favor gold as a portfolio hedge, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: As U.S. unemployment continues falling, inflation will re-emerge, as predicted by the Philips Curve trade-off so important to central-bank policy. Gold then will face two opposing forces. Its inflation hedging properties will be partially hamstrung by rising real U.S. rates and a strengthening USD. Nevertheless, we will turn bullish gold towards the end of next year as signs of an equity bear market emerge. Gold Will Outperform In An Equity Bear Market Our modelling indicates gold is an exceptional safe-haven during downturns in equity markets.5 It is especially attractive in equity bear markets because its returns during such episodes are negatively correlated with the U.S. stock market. This relationship with equities does not hold in bull markets -- gold prices typically rise during such periods, but at a slower rate than equities (Table 1). Table 1Gold's Ability To Hedge U.S. Equities In a Special Report titled "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?" BCA's Global Asset Allocation Strategy team looked at the performance of nine safe-haven assets and found, on average, they are negatively correlated with equities in every bear market since 1972.6 Although the current equity bull market still has room to run, recessions and bear markets tend to coincide (Chart 6). If the economy goes into recession in 2H19, equities could peak as early as the end of next year.7 Chart 6Bear Markets Usually Precede Recessions Gold's role as a global portfolio hedge during bear markets would thus support the hypothesis that the metal could enter a bull market as soon as end-2018 when equity markets start pricing in a recession (Chart 7). Things could get interesting at this point, since a clear indication the economy is entering into a recession likely will cause "traumatized" central bankers to turn overly dovish. This would add support to the gold market longer term.8 Chart 7Gold Outperforms During Recessions##BR##And Geopolitical Crises Correlations between safe havens decline during bear markets, as our GAA strategists found when they compared correlations by dividing the assets into three "buckets": currencies, inflation hedges, and fixed-income instruments. In this analysis, our GAA team found that gold outperformed TIPS and Farmland in the inflation-hedge bucket.9 Bottom Line: Gold is an exceptional hedge against downturns in equity markets. The bear market preceding the late-2019 recession we expect will put a bid under gold. The eventual turn to the dovish side by central bankers will further support the metal. Gold Will Hedge Geopolitical Risks A confluence of elevated geopolitical risks next year will drive part of gold's performance. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) group has highlighted the following three themes investors need to track going into next year: U.S.-China Tensions: Our geopolitical strategists believe that the Korean conflict is a derivative of a more important secular trend of U.S.-China tensions. They estimate the risk of total war on the Korean peninsula at less than 3% and believe that the market impact of North Korea's provocations has peaked in the late summer. Nevertheless, they warn against complacency, as the underlying tensions over Pyongyang's nuclear program remain unresolved and North Korea could break with its past patterns.10 If the North stages attacks against U.S. or Japanese assets, or international shipping or aircraft, for instance, it could cause a larger safe-haven rally than what we witnessed earlier this year. At the very least, geopolitically induced volatility may return as U.S. President Trump tries to convince the world that war is a real option - a critical condition for establishing a "credible threat" of war with which to influence North Korean behavior - and as the U.S. and China spar over other issues. Trump's protectionism: Trump's campaign promised significant trade-protectionism. While he has not yet acted on those promises, the risk is that he returns to them next year.11 These policies could impact the gold market by: a. Feeding fears that the United States is abandoning the global liberal order; b. Intensifying U.S. trade tensions and strategic distrust with China; c. Pressuring U.S. domestic inflation via higher import prices. This risk will become even more elevated if the Trump administration and Congress fail to pass any tax legislation this year. Our geopolitical strategists believe that such a failure, while not their baseline scenario, would drive Trump to focus on his foreign policy and trade agenda more intently, especially ahead of the midterm elections in November next year, which would increase safe-haven flows. 3. Mideast Troubles: While we are not alarmist about the Middle East, the risk of market-relevant conflicts will be higher over the coming 12 months than over the previous year, following the fall of ISIS. The latter gave reason for various regional powers to cooperate, while its absence will revive their grievances with each other. Kurdish assertiveness is a key consequence, highlighted by last month's Kurdish independence referendum.12 Iraqi forces have pushed ISIS out of major Iraqi cities and the slowdown in the fight against ISIS could push Iraqi forces to focus on regaining the province of Kirkuk. Kirkuk, which is home to major oil fields and reserves, has been under Kurdish control since 2014 when the Peshmerga forces there captured it from ISIS. As ISIS ceases to be a threat, Baghdad will try to regain control of these precious oil fields. The Kurdish conflict, as well as Trump's pressure tactics against Iran, will increase geopolitical risks in oil-producing (hence market-relevant) areas. Chart 82017 Risks Were Overstated In a recent study investigating how different "safe-havens" assets react to political and financial events, our GPS colleagues found that gold provides the best average returns following a major geopolitical event (Chart 7).13 Our House geopolitical view has maintained that political risks in 2017 were overstated. This was particularly the case in Europe, where much of the risk was exaggerated and merely the product of linear extrapolation from the outcomes of the U.K. referendum on EU membership and the U.S. presidential election. As such, we do not expect any European break-up risk to support gold prices next year. Although elevated Italian Euroscepticism is one lingering European risk that could impact gold markets, we see this as a long-term risk rather than a market catalyst arising from the Italian general election in May next year. Reflecting our view, the policy uncertainty index has fallen drastically in the last two months (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Elevated political risks in 2018 will further support the gold market. Most notable on our geopolitical strategists' minds are continued U.S.-China tensions (most notably over Korea), Trump's protectionist policies, and potential conflicts in the Middle East. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Our results show 1% increase in U.S. YoY CPI, 5 year real rates, and USD TWI are associated with a 4% increase, 0.18% decline and a 0.21% decline in gold prices, respectively. The adjusted R2 is 0.88. 3 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Outlook "Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," dated October 4, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Is King Dollar Back," dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 We use the S&P 500 Total Return (TR) index as a proxy for U.S. equities. 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?," dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, dated October 2, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Outlook "Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," dated October 4, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?," dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Armed conflict in the Middle East usually lead to a sharp rally in gold prices. Please see Table 1 from Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?," dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Go long industrials/short discretionary. Leading indicators of interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative exports all signal that industrials stocks will outperform their consumer discretionary peers. A price war is gripping airlines anew, and it will suck the air out of the industry. Recent Changes Long S&P Industrials/Short S&P Consumer Discretionary - Initiate this pair trade today. Table 1 Feature Tax relief euphoria propelled the S&P 500 to fresh all-time highs last week. While such exuberance has rekindled the "Trump trade" with small caps outshining mega caps and banks soaring (as a reminder we have a small cap size bias and are overweight financials/banks1), it will likely prove fleeting unless the tax bill becomes law. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a tax bill passage is likely in Q1/2018.2 Were that to materialize, it would serve as a catalyst to further fuel the blow off phase in equities. Why? Empirical evidence suggests that easy fiscal policy outweighs the drag from Fed interest rate tightening. Filtering the post WWII era for periods of easing fiscal and tightening monetary policies during expansions is revealing. We define easy fiscal policy as increasing fiscal thrust (year-over-year change in cyclically-adjusted fiscal balance as a percentage of potential GDP, shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 1) and tight monetary policy as a rising fed funds rate. Chart 1Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX While this is a rare occurrence, it has clearly happened seven times since the mid-1950s (shaded areas, Chart 1). As a clarification, we omitted the brief periods in the early-1960s, early-1970s and twice in the early-1980s as they were very close to the end of those recessions and positively skewed the results. All iterations resulted in positive stock returns with the SPX rising on average by over 16%. Table 2 details all seven periods that have an average duration of 16 months. There are high odds that a tax bill enactment coupled with a potential infrastructure spending bill will more than cushion the blow from the Fed's interest rate hikes in 2018, and sustain the overshoot phase in equities. As we recently showed in our equity market indicator White Paper, the business cycle stays intact during Fed tightening cycles, and historically a peak in the fed funds rate presages a recession.3 Importantly, the highly cyclical part of the U.S. economy is humming. The latest ISM manufacturing survey showed that new orders are running 20% higher than inventories, with the headline number soaring to a 13 year high (third panel, Chart 2). Prices paid also spiked to above 70, signaling that commodity inflation is looming. And, were the capex revival to gain steam as most of the leading indicators we track suggest (see Chart 8 from the October 2nd Weekly Report), then late cyclicals will continue to benefit from end-demand resurgence. Table 2SPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Chart 2It's Deep##br## Cyclicals' Time As a result, we reiterate last week's upgrade of the S&P industrials sector to overweight, and this week we add more deep cyclical exposure to our portfolio by initiating a market-neutral pair trade to benefit from this enticing macro backdrop. Industrials Will Outmuscle Consumer Discretionary In the past few weeks, we have tweaked our cyclical portfolio exposure by downgrading early-cyclical consumer discretionary stocks to a benchmark allocation and lifting the late cyclical industrials complex to overweight. In fact, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to buy industrials at the expense of discretionary stocks has surfaced, and we recommend a new long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade to exploit this tradable opportunity. Chart 3 shows that relative share prices recently bounced near the early-1970s all-time lows and a mini V-shaped recovery is taking root. The industrials/discretionary price ratio has been in a downtrend for the better part of the past decade and the most recent peak-to-trough collapse has been a 4 standard deviation move (Chart 3). Even a modest relative performance renormalization near the historical mean would translate into impressive returns. Chart 3Compelling Entry Point Four key drivers underpin our warming up to this late over early cyclical pair trade: interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative export backdrop. The Fed embarked on a fresh tightening interest rate cycle almost two years ago and is on track to lift the fed funds rate another 100bps by the end of 2018 according to the FOMC's median dot forecast. Interest rate-sensitive stocks suffer when the Fed tightens monetary policy, whereas deep cyclicals disproportionately benefit from accelerating economic growth. Chart 4 confirms that over the past four decades a rising fed funds rate has been synonymous with an increase in the relative share price ratio and vice versa. Chart 4Tight Money Is Good For Industrials But Weighs On Discretionary The framework we use on the interest rate front is that higher interest rates represent a sizable hindrance to consumer spending (top and second panel Chart 5). Not only does the price of housing-related credit rise in lockstep with fed hikes, but also auto and credit card interest rates, two major consumer loan categories, increase on the back of the Fed's tighter monetary backdrop. True, C&I loan pricing also suffers a setback, but capital goods producers can bypass banks and raise debt in the bond markets. In fact, this cycle, the global hunt for yield and unconventional monetary policies have suppressed interest rates to the benefit of corporate borrowers. One final relative advantage industrials outfits have this cycle is rising pricing power in the form of firming commodity prices (third panel, Chart 5), while wage growth/median income (a proxy for consumer pricing power) has been subpar. Taken together, higher interest rates and rising commodity prices should continue to underpin relative share price momentum (Chart 5). Relative sentiment readings also suggest that industrials manufacturers have the upper hand versus consumer discretionary companies (Chart 6). The overall ISM manufacturing survey is easily outpacing consumer confidence readings. Importantly, the ISM survey and most of the subcomponents are making multi-year highs, while both the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment survey and The Conference Board's consumer confidence reading peaked in early 2017. Chart 5Commodity Inflation Is A Boon For##br## Industrials But Bane For Discretionary Chart 6Manufacturing Flexing ##br##Its Muscles With regard to the relative demand landscape, a sustained capital expenditure upcycle is promising for capital goods producers (second panel, Chart 7), at a time when personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are anemic at best. Notably, real capital outlays have been rising at a faster clip than real PCE, signaling that the upward trajectory in relative forward EPS estimates is sustainable (middle panel, Chart 7). Our relative pricing power gauge has recently come out of its funk reflecting this improving relative demand backdrop. The implication is that a rerating phase is likely in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 7). Finally, the relative export backdrop suggests that industrials come out on top of discretionary stocks (top panel, Chart 8). According to FactSet the S&P consumer discretionary sector's foreign revenue exposure stands at 24% of total sales, and it is roughly 60% higher for the S&P industrials sector at 38% of revenues.4 While the year-to-date breakdown in the greenback is stimulative for industrials exporters, it is, at the margin, restrictive for the more domestically oriented consumer discretionary companies (trade-weighted dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 8). Our relative EPS growth models best capture all of these moving parts and suggest that the path of least resistance for relative profit growth is higher in the coming quarters (Chart 9). Chart 7Capex##br## Upcycle... Chart 8... And Export Markets Benefit Industrials##br## At The Expense Of Discretionary Chart 9Relative Profit Growth Models Also Say##br## Buy The Relative Share Price Ratio Adding up, all four key macro variables (interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative export exposure) signal that the time is ripe for a new industrials versus discretionary pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade. Airlines Update: Mayday While we have turned positive on the broad industrials complex and remain constructive on most transports, we continue to recommend investors avoid the S&P airlines index. This decade has seen a huge recovery in consumer confidence, rising from the depths of the Great Recession. The consumer's revival has been matched by equally steep growth in airline passenger traffic (Chart 10). However, the resurgence in passenger demand has not had the expected uplift in pricing. Rather, the opposite has happened; consumers have not seen a sustainable price increase in years and airline pricing power has collapsed, even in the face of soaring jet fuel costs that eat into profits (Chart 11). The costly price war between the low cost carriers and the largely-restructured legacy airlines the industry is currently embroiled in explains deflating airfares (Chart 12). Chart 10More Passengers... Chart 11... But Higher Fuel Costs... Chart 12... And Price Concessions Crash Profits The industry has been here before, and recently too. 2015 was a tumultuous year that saw pricing collapse as the ultra-low cost carriers entered the traditional hubs, triggering a scramble for market share. Brave airline investors have been whipsawed as the industry recovered and then stumbled again earlier this year. From a profit perspective, airlines have been able to hide poor pricing with efficiency gains (Chart 13). Industry load factors have been steadily moving upward, though those gains appear to have plateaued at peak levels. The implication is that this current price war will hit profit margins and thus the bottom line worse than in the past (Chart 13). Expanding international air travel could provide some relief to the besieged legacy carriers as international airfares look to have pulled out of deflation (Chart 14). However, the sustainability of positive pricing is questionable as international no-frills carriers are gaining greater penetration and often have significantly lower cost structures. Once unheard of trans-Atlantic travel for below $200 is now widely available. Chart 13Masking Poor Pricing Backdrop Chart 14Analysts Ignore Positives At the same time as cash generation appears most threatened, the industry is in the midst of an expensive fleet renewal as airlines seek to replace declining prices and aging fleets with higher volume and more efficient aircraft. In fact, capex as a percentage of sales has nearly tripled since 2012. The result is predictable; the hard deleveraging work the industry put in over the course of this decade is being unwound (Chart 13). An increasingly geared balance sheet, combined with weakening margins should translate directly into a higher risk premium and lower valuation multiples. However, while multiples have fallen from the sky-high levels earlier this decade, they remain well above the lows of 2015-16 (Chart 14). This implies further downside risk should risk premiums expand as we expect. With sell-side analysts jumping on board the bear story, as evidenced by net forward earnings revisions falling off a cliff (Chart 14), this should probably happen sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: With no end in sight to the price war and outsized capacity additions likely to throw fuel on the fire, we think investors should stay away from the S&P airlines index. Accordingly, we reiterate our underweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report,"Girding For A Breakout?" dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report,"Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Chart 55 of BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: U.S. Equity Market Indicators (Part I)", dated August 7, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.factset.com/earningsinsight Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights China's growth momentum is unlikely to continue to accelerate, but the downside risk is low. Some more recent developments suggest economic momentum remains fairly robust. The heated debate on a "soft or hard landing" in recent years has disproportionally diverted investors' attention to China's cyclical growth fluctuations, while some larger picture changes have gone unnoticed. The Chinese economy will undoubtedly continue to experience cyclical swings; it is equally important to keep in mind some mega trends that hold the potential to reshape the world in profound ways. Feature The Chinese economy has likely ended the third quarter on a slightly higher note, according to "nowcast" types of models using high-frequency data (Chart 1). The latest PMI surveys, focusing on both the manufacturing and service sectors, accelerated in September from the prior month, and remain comfortably in expansionary territory, heralding positive surprises in the macro numbers to be released in the coming weeks. China's mini-cycle acceleration since early last year has been fairly modest by historical standards, but it has been a key component driving synchronized improvement in global growth. Moreover, the resilience of the Chinese economy has led to a quick repricing of risk assets that were deeply depressed in previous years due to China "hard landing" concerns. Stock prices of both Chinese investable equities and the emerging market benchmark have rallied massively since the 2016 bottom. Total returns of Chinese equities and EM stocks, price appreciation and dividend payments combined, have both broken out to all-time highs (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Q3 GDP Should Have Remained Strong Chart 2Breakout In China And EM Equities Looking forward, Chinese growth momentum is unlikely to continue to accelerate, but the downside risk remains low in the near term, as we have argued in recent months. In fact, some more recent developments suggest economic momentum remains fairly robust. More importantly, the heated debates among investors and analysts in recent years on China's macro stability have disguised some dramatic changes in the Chinese economy, which will have a profound and long-lasting impact on the global economy and financial markets from a big-picture standpoint. Given China's rising economic significance, getting China right will become all the more important for investors going forward. Near-Term Growth Outlook Remains Solid The Chinese economy will likely continue to surprise to the upside in the coming months. First, there is little risk of aggressive policy tightening that would prematurely choke off the economy, as economic growth is within the government's target, consumer price inflation is exceedingly low and financial excesses have been reined in.1 The latest decision of the People's Bank of China (PBoC) to lower reserve requirement ratios (RRR) for banks offering loans to small-sized enterprises should not be confused as a broad attempt to boost credit and growth. The move certainly reflects the authorities' preference for offering credit to smaller private borrowers, but it also reflects the PBoC's continued fine-tuning of its liquidity management.2 The PBoC has significantly ramped up direct lending to banks since 2015 to offset the liquidity drainage from capital outflows from the country's financial sector - the pace of PBoC direct lending has slowed since early this year (Chart 3, top panel). This means that the central bank will need to resort to other tools to manage interbank liquidity should stress increase - releasing required reserves being one of them. Taken together, the PBoC's liquidity injection has almost precisely matched the liquidity withdrawal due to capital outflows, as can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 3. The key point here is that the PBoC's latest decision is not to encourage a lending spree, but it certainly does not indicate intentions of aggressive tightening. Second, some view China's lukewarm industrial activity as a sign of weak growth momentum, and argue for a pending relapse. In fact, some sectors have been under strict government scrutiny to cut capacity and production in recent years - a key reason behind the exceptional weakness in these industries despite massive improvement in their sales, pricing power and profits. In other words, these sectors have not been responding to market signals due to government restrictions of "supply side reforms" to cut excess capacity and reduce pollution. For example, some sectors that are subject to "supply side" constraints such as coal, base metals and cement producers have chronically underperformed in recent years, and have also hurt the overall performance of the industrial sector (Chart 4). Similarly, capital spending in the mining sector, historically highly sensitive to moves in global metals prices, have continued to contract, despite the sharp increase in metals prices since 2016. Without these regulations, the performance of the industrial sector should have been a lot stronger. In addition, without aggressive expansion in the "good times," the odds of another major relapse in these highly cyclical industries when the "bad times" do come are also lower. Chart 3The PBoC Liquidity Operation Chart 4Policy Constraints Weigh Heavy On Some Sectors Third, the Chinese authorities' tightening measures on the real estate sector pose a growth risk, and should continue to be monitored; the impact is unlikely to be significant, as discussed in detail in last week's report.3 Developers have also been subject to "supply side" constraints and have not increased construction in this cycle, despite rising home prices, increasing transactions and booming profits (Chart 5). Tighter policies imposed by local governments will probably keep developers in dormancy, but a major downturn is highly unlikely, simply because there is not much excess to begin with. Finally, while China has been a key component of the synchronized global growth improvement, the country has also benefited from a pickup in global demand.4 Korean exports, a harbinger of global trade, jumped by a whopping 35% in dollar terms in September versus a year ago. It is certainly unrealistic to expect such strong momentum to last, but the benign global demand situation is unlikely to immediately falter without some sort of extreme external shock. Similarly, our model expects Chinese export growth to moderate, but there are no signs of a sharp contraction anytime soon (Chart 6). Chart 5Real Estate Investment May Surprise To The Upside Chart 6Exports: Moderating, Not Relapsing Bottom Line: China's near-term growth outlook will remain resilient, providing a supportive macro backdrop for global risk assets. The China Debate: Seven Years On Ever since the Chinese economy recovered from the aftermath of the global financial crisis, with the help of a massive government stimulus package, investors' opinions on China's macro situation have been deeply divided.5 To be sure, sensational predictions of an imminent China collapse have always existed, ever since the country's economic reform, but they were mostly rooted in ideological bashing and were largely ignored by global investors. In recent years, however, predictions of a Chinese "hard landing" have been taken much more seriously by the mainstream media, as well as investors and policymakers. Amid mounting doubts about its long term sustainability, the Chinese economy has experienced some remarkable achievements and dramatic changes in the past several years. The Chinese economy continues to gain global significance, accounting for 16% of global economic output currently versus 9% in 2010. More importantly, its contribution to global economic growth is far larger, given its faster growth rate (Chart 7). China's nominal GDP currently stands at about US$11.5 trillion, a distant second to the mighty US$19.2 trillion U.S. economy. However, 7% of nominal growth in China feasibly amounts to an increase of US$800 billion in gross output, compared with US$770 billion for the U.S., assuming the latter is to grow by 4% in nominal terms. Although China's growth rate has downshifted since the global financial crisis, the increase in the country's total output in value terms has become even greater, given the economy's much larger size. China remains the dominant factor in driving global commodities demand, especially base metals. China's base metals consumption accounts for over 50% of the global total, higher than the rest of the world combined (Chart 8). More importantly, China's base metal consumption has continued to climb in recent years, while demand from the rest of the world has stagnated. In recent years, "sluggish" Chinese metals consumption has been blamed for commodities woes by some analysts; in reality, the country has been the only source of demand increase for base metals. China's role in driving the supply/demand balance of raw materials has increased significantly since the global financial crisis. Chart 7China's Growing Significance In World Economy Chart 8China And Base Metals The country's heavy investment on infrastructure has massively changed its urban landscape, leading to a significant improvement in the country's transportation system, with massive expansion in high-speed railway, urban metro and light-rail system, and further extensions of the highway network (Chart 9). This has significantly narrowed the country's infrastructure gap with more advanced countries, facilitating both international trade and domestic demand (Chart 10). Chinese car sales have jumped from about 10 million per year in 2010 to 25 million currently, by far the largest car market in the world. Without improvement in logistical infrastructure, there is little doubt the country's growth trajectory would have faced severe bottlenecks. Chart 9Massive Expansion Of ##br##Transportation Infrastructure... Chart 10...Has Narrowed The Gap ##br##With Developed Economies Finally, the impact of Chinese consumers has become all the more visible on the global stage. Even though China still ranks as a middle-income country with a per-capita GDP of about US$8000, a fraction of the US$57,000 in the U.S., the sheer size of the Chinese population, the rapid increase in household income and the country's very high savings rate have fundamentally shifted the wealth distribution of the global population. Currently, only about 20% of the world population has a per-capita GDP higher than China, a rapid change within a short period of time (Chart 11). This dramatic shift has profoundly redefined the global economic landscape, affecting the spectrum of essentially all businesses, from manufacturers' cost structures to luxury goods markets to tourism and education to financial services. Chart 11China's Rising Income In Perspective The list can easily be extended, but the point here is that the heated debate on a "soft or hard landing" in recent years has disproportionally diverted investors' attention to China's cyclical growth fluctuations, while some larger picture changes have gone unnoticed. Of course, financial markets are an emotional discounting mechanism, and stock prices always exaggerate any subtle changes in growth fundamentals, which can in turn impact economic reality through a complex web of reflexivity relationships. Chinese equities lagged significantly behind developed markets, particularly the U.S. bourses, between 2011 and 2015, which apparently validated the bears' views. In reality, however, multiples of Chinese equities, and emerging market in general, were deeply compressed compared with their developed market peers (Chart 12). In other words, it is largely multiples compression associated with heightened risk aversion and greater risk premium that was behind the woes of Chinese and EM markets before 2015. Since 2016, China's mini-cycle upturn has progressively raised investors' risk appetite towards China and EM, lifting their multiples and prices - essentially a positive re-rating of these markets. Chart 12Positive Rerating Of China ##br##And EM Has Further To Run The debate on China's growth sustainability will likely remain firmly in place in the coming years, which will continue to create cross-currents and outsized volatility. As an investor, it is futile to argue with "Mr. Market." Even with strong convictions on the fundamental case, investors should be nimble and avoid standing in front of an oncoming train - however ill-informed the market consensus could be. For now, Chinese and EM equities are still much more attractively valued compared with the developed world, and the train of the positive re-rating of these bourses will likely have further to run. It is too soon to bet on a trend reversal. Whither China: The Big Picture Fundamentally the China debate boils down to the country's growth model, which invests a much greater share of its output than most other major economies. The "bears" conclude this amounts to capital misallocation and propose a "rebalancing" towards consumption. Some even claim China's massive savings, essential for financing domestic capital spending, are byproducts of banks' "out of thin air" money printing - to me, if "thin air" money was indeed such a magical silver bullet, the world would have solved its poverty problems a long time ago. Over the years I have argued firmly against these assertions. In economics, it is well known that a country's income level is fundamentally determined by its productivity, which is in turn determined by the level and sophistication of its capital stock. Chart 13 shows a clear positive correlation between a country's per capita output, a measure of productivity, and its per capita capital stock. In general, industrialized countries enjoy much higher levels of per capita capital stock than developing economies, leading to much higher productivity, income as well as living standards. Therefore, the industrialization process, by definition, is the process of accumulation of capital stock through investment, which has been proven by many economies that have successfully industrialized. China's growth path in the past several decades is simply repeating these success stories. As shown in Chart 14, despite some remarkable achievements, the productivity level of the average Chinese worker is still just a fraction of the level in more advanced countries. If China remains on the path of accumulation of capital stock through savings and investment, the country will continue to progress on the productivity and income ladder. If, however, it abandons its current growth model and "rebalances" towards a consumption-driven one, odds are much higher that the country will stagnate and fail to advance beyond the "middle income trap." Chart 13Productivity Is Positively ##br##Correlated With Capital Stock Chart 14China's Catchup Process ##br##Has A Lot Further To Run In my 15 years of covering China for BCA, the country has dramatically shifted beyond recognition - the pace of changes are still accelerating. Looking forward, the Chinese economy will undoubtedly continue to experience cyclical swings; it is equally important to keep in mind some mega trends that hold the potential to reshape the world in profound ways. The following are a few worth highlighting. Chart 15China's Tech Boom The first mega trend is the explosive growth of the Chinese technology sector, which will increasingly challenge players in more advanced economies. The tech boom is reflected in the dramatic expansion of e-commerce and mobile payments, spectacular price gains in the BAT giants (Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent) and surging patent applications among the corporate sector (Chart 15). With a massive and homogenous domestic market and increasingly affluent consumers, China has rapidly become the testing ground of all new high-tech sectors - from big data and artificial intelligence to industrial robotics and additive manufacturing, to genetic analysis and quantum computing - with numerous startups and venture capitalists as well as government support on basic research and development. This is bound to create exciting investment opportunities with winners and losers far beyond Chinese borders. The second major development is the "Belt & Road Initiative" (BRI), also known as "One Belt One Road," or OBOR, that links China with some less developed nations. The project, initially proposed by President Xi Jinping in 2013 but met with heavy doubts, has been quietly gaining momentum. Some commentators have viewed the BRI as an attempt by the Chinese authorities to export excess domestic industrial capacity and have tried to quantify the impact, which is shortsighted and likely useless. China's vision of the BRI is an ambitious open-ended geo-strategic, economic and social undertaking to promote globalization with distinct "Chinese characteristics." There is no doubt that BRI will face tremendous challenges, and its ultimate destiny is simply an "unknowable unknown" at the moment. However, some solid progress has been made, and foreign authorities are increasingly taking the BRI seriously. Even with limited success, the BRI holds the promise of redefining the balance of geopolitics, global trade and international finance. The role of the RMB in international finance will inevitably grow at the expense of other majors, particularly the dollar. Investors will be well served to closely follow this mega development. Finally, how China's governance and political system will evolve remains a major question mark for investors, especially from a long-term perspective. Democracy has increasingly become the norm of world politics since the early 1990s, with over half of the global population currently living in democratic regimes, while China's political system is decisively foreign (Chart 16). Investors are ideologically skeptical on the long-term sustainability of China's essentially meritocratic authoritarian regime. Investors mostly see democracy as China's ultimate future, and expect the country to progressively move in this direction, along with rising economic prosperity. In reality, however, the ruling Communist Party has tightened its grip over the country in recent years, apparently reverting the trend of political liberalization that was underway in previous years. Chart 16Is Democracy China's Future? In essence, China, with over 20% of the world population, is conducting a mega-political experiment by searching for an alternative to open democracy, the prospect of which remains unknown. The majority of the Chinese population have been content with the existing system, and have been adapting to drastic social and economic changes with ease in the past several decades. Numerous previous predictions of an imminent collapse of the Chinese regime have repeatedly proven wrong, but the underlying anxiety will remain, especially when China's economic growth further downshifts. Political and social stability is crucial for the country's continued economic development. A major social upheaval, on the other hand, would have devastating consequences, not only for China but also for the entire world. Stay tuned. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Financial Tightening: Passing The Phase Of Maximum Strength," dated June 22, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "More On The Chinese Debt Debate," dated April 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Real Estate: Which Way Will The Wind Blow?" dated April 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit," dated July 13, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The China Debate," dated April 14, 2010, and China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The China Debate: Four Years On," dated April 30, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

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

Highlights Oil Breakout: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. Trump Trade: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Taper: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Feature A More "Normal" Bond Market Chart of the WeekLike Deja Vu All Over Again Global bond yields have bounced very sharply off the September lows. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a 3-month intraday high of 2.37% yesterday, while the 10-year German Bund yield touched 0.5% last week. Bond markets have returned to focusing on traditional fundamentals, like growth and inflation, after spending a few weeks worrying about nuclear tensions with North Korea and other political matters. On that note, the global economic news continues to point towards continued solid growth, rising inflation pressures and, in response, less accommodative monetary policy. There is scope for additional increases in bond yields, as markets are still pricing in too much pessimism on inflation and too little hawkishness from central bankers. The latter is especially true in the U.S. where the Federal Reserve is sticking with its plans to deliver another 100bps of rate hikes by the end of 2018 if its growth and inflation forecasts are realized. The odds of that happening would increase substantially if the Trump Administration can successfully deliver tax cuts, which would represent a very rare occurrence of a fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment in the U.S. The announcement last week of the Trump tax cut proposals did send a whiff of the old "Trump trade" dynamic through financial markets. The U.S. Treasury curve bear-steepened, the U.S. dollar rallied, inflation expectations rose and the S&P 500 blasted through the 2500 level to hit a new all-time high. Stocks of companies that pay higher tax rates outperformed, just like they did after the election of President Trump nearly one year ago (Chart of the Week). Add in some additional reflationary pressure from Brent oil prices approaching $60/bbl, and it is no surprise that yield curves in most Developed Markets (not just the U.S.) steepened. With this reflationary backdrop, amid tight labor markets and a solid pace of coordinated global growth, we continue to recommend fixed income investors maintain a defensive duration posture, while favoring spread product over government bonds. Yields will continue to rise in the next 6-12 months, but led more by the long-end initially. In particular, we expect government bond yield curves to extend the recent trend of bear-steepening, for three reasons: rising inflation expectations, increased optimism on U.S. fiscal policy and what it means for the Fed, and the upcoming announcement of a tapering of bond purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB). Are Bond Investors Too Complacent On The Inflationary Impact Of Higher Oil Prices? We have received a surprisingly small amount of criticism from the BCA client base about our bearish strategic view on global government bonds in recent months. Perhaps that is because our clients also have a negative opinion on duration risk. At our annual investment conference in New York last week, we conducted polls which showed that a majority of the attendees expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to rise to between 2.5% & 3% by this time next year. At the same time, only 1 in 4 respondents felt that being short duration in U.S. Treasuries was the "contrarian" trade that was most likely to succeed over next 12 months - perhaps because betting on higher yields is not really a contrarian opinion right now! Yet we wonder how aggressively investors in aggregate, and not just BCA clients, are positioned for a rising yield environment. The market is only discounting 40bps of Fed rate hikes over the next twelve months, even as the U.S. economic data flow continues to improve and the Trump Trade is coming back in style (Chart 2). Survey data shows that professional bond managers are running only small duration underweights, yet speculators are still running very net long positions in Treasury futures. In other Developed Markets, there are not a lot of rate hikes priced outside of Canada - where the central bank actually is tightening policy - despite our Central Bank Monitors all calling for policymakers to become less dovish, if not more outright hawkish, as we discussed last week.1 In their defense, bond investors have had a lot of non-economic factors to digest in the past couple of months - not the least of which is judging how much of an "apocalypse premium" to price into bond yields given the nuclear saber rattling between D.C. and Pyongyang. Yet when stepping back away from the headlines and tweets, bond markets have been noting the implications of rising oil prices in a typical manner - higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves. Oil prices have risen over $10/bbl since the June lows, led by a combination of rising demand on the back of an expanding global economy and a diminished supply response that has seen excessive inventories start to be wound down (Chart 3). BCA's commodity strategists have been expecting such a move to unfold, and prices have already risen into the $55-60/bbl range (on Brent crude) that they were calling for towards year-end. While a move beyond $60/bbl is not currently expected, any additional upside surprises in global growth can only tighten the supply/demand balance in an oil-bullish direction. At a minimum, oil prices can consolidate recent gains, providing a floor to inflation expectations. Already, the breakeven rate on 10-year TIPS in the U.S. have risen 18bps off the June lows, which has prevented the slope of the Treasury curve from flattening even as the 2-year Treasury yield hit an 9-year high last week (Chart 4). We expect to see more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve in the next few months as realized inflation rates begin to grind higher and the Fed will be relatively slow to respond - they'll need to see the inflation pick up first before delivering more rate hikes. This will result in higher market-based inflation expectations (i.e. wider TIPS breakevens) as investors price in a greater chance that inflation will sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target. While oil is not the only factor that matters for U.S. inflation, it is a lot harder for investors to believe that core PCE inflation can rise to 2% without higher oil prices. Chart 2A Revival Of The Trump Trade? Chart 3A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil Chart 4Oil Vs. The U.S. Yield Curve A similar dynamic is taking place in other countries. Inflation expectations (linkers or CPI swaps) are rising alongside rising energy prices in the Euro Area (Chart 5), U.K. (Chart 6), Canada (Chart 7) and Australia (Chart 8). The moves in expectations are largest in countries experiencing stronger growth (the Euro Area and Canada), and more modest where growth is mixed (the U.K.) and where realized inflation is still very low (Australia). Yield curves have generally steepened in response to the reflationary rise in oil prices except for Canada, where the central bank has already delivered two surprise rate hikes over the summer and markets have priced in nearly three more hikes over the next year. Yet even there, global reflation will put steepening pressure on the Canadian yield curve without additional hawkishness from the Bank of Canada. Chart 5Oil Vs. The German Yield Curve Chart 6Oil Vs. The U.K. Yield Curve Chart 7Oil Vs. The Canada Yield Curve Chart 8Oil Vs. The Australia Yield Curve Japan, as always, remains the outlier to global trends. While oil prices have been rising even in yen terms, inflation expectations have remained subdued and the JGB yield curve has stayed flat (Chart 9). With the Bank of Japan targeting a 0% yield on the benchmark 10-year JGB as part of its current monetary policy framework, the link between energy prices, inflation expectations and the slope of the yield curve will remain broken in Japan. This makes JGBs a very low-beta government bond market, and we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan given our bias toward a defensive portfolio duration posture. Chart 9Oil Vs. The Japan Yield Curve Net-net, we see oil as continuing to provide a steepening, reflationary bias to global bond yields in the next few months, as the impact of the rise in energy prices feeds through into faster rates of headline inflation. How central banks respond will determine what curves do beyond that but, for now, the bias is towards steeper curves. Bottom Line: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. How Will The Trump Tax Plan Impact The Treasury Curve? Ask The Fed Another factor that will put steepening pressure on global yield curves, especially in the U.S., is the likelihood of the Trump fiscal stimulus coming to fruition. The White House has chosen to refocus its policy efforts on getting aggressive tax cuts implemented. This is low-hanging fruit for a president that needs a legislative victory after fighting a losing battle on health care reform. Last week, the latest Trump tax plan was unveiled, which is centered on delivering large cuts on corporate taxes, reducing the number of personal income tax brackets, eliminating many large tax deductions, allowing companies to fully expense investment spending at an accelerated rate, and introducing a territorial tax system that would exempt U.S. corporate taxes on the foreign earnings of U.S. companies. The Tax Policy Center unveiled its initial assessment of the Trump tax plan last Friday, which is expected to reduce U.S. federal tax revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years and another $3.2 trillion in the following decade.2 The White House is betting on so-called "dynamic scoring" of the tax plan to recoup some of that lost revenue via higher economic growth, although that is filled with unrealistic expectations to prevent an unwanted surge in federal deficits. More likely, the Trump plan would result in a major increase in federal budget deficits over the next decade, similar to the levels estimated by Moody's last year in its own analysis of the Trump fiscal platform.3 In Chart 10, we show how periods of widening federal budget deficits typically coincide with periods of U.S. Treasury curve steepening. Usually, this is merely the business cycle at work, with deficits widening during economic downturns as tax revenues plunge and counter-cyclical government expenditure increases. What is also at work is the monetary policy cycle, with the Fed delivering rate cuts during recessions when the output gap is widening and inflation pressures are diminishing, thus bull-steepening the yield curve. Chart 10Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Yet the current Trump tax proposal comes at a time when the U.S. economy is operating close to full employment with the output gap essentially closed (middle panel). This means that any impetus to U.S. economic growth from the fiscal easing can cause inflation pressures to build up in a manner different than typical periods of widening budget deficits. This should initially impart steepening pressures on the Treasury curve, but in a bearish fashion via higher longer-term inflation expectations. However, the eventual path for the Treasury curve will be determined by how much the Fed responds to the fiscal easing via tighter monetary policy. Typically, the slope of the Treasury curve is highly negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate (adjusted by headline inflation), with a higher real rate coinciding with a flatter curve and vice versa (bottom panel). Right now, the market is discounting only a modest rise in real U.S. policy rates, looking at the difference between forward Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates and forward CPI swap rates. That market-implied "real rate" is expected to stay in a modest range between 0% and 1% until well into the next decade. The Fed is also forecasting a rise in the real funds rate to 0.75%, but over a much faster time horizon - within two years - than the market. This is in the context of U.S. core inflation sustainably returning to the Fed's 2% target, which will allow the Fed to eventually raise rates to its current "terminal" rate projection of 2.75%. Thus, when simply eyeballing the relationship between real rates and the slope of the curve in Chart 10, the risk is that real rates will be higher than the market expects over time, and the Treasury curve will be flatter, all else equal. Yet when looking at the slope of the Treasury curve that is currently priced into the forwards, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart 10, a substantial flattening is already discounted over the next decade. Admittedly, the correlation between the real funds rate and the slope of the curve has changed over past decades, and the curve can likely be flatter for a lower level of real yields than in years past. Yet, even allowing for that, the market does seem to be discounting a very aggressive rise in real interest rates over the coming decade - one that is unlikely to be realized unless the Fed delivers a much higher path of interest rates then they are currently projecting. Which brings us back to the Trump fiscal stimulus. If the corporate tax cuts do provide a boost to economic growth next year via increased investment spending and hiring activity, in a way that also overheats the U.S. economy and boosts core inflation, then the Fed may be forced to raise rates at a faster pace than planned. This would result in a much flatter yield curve and would raise the risks of a recession in 2019, which is a scenario we think is highly plausible, especially if there is a change at the top of the FOMC. Late last week, it was revealed that President Trump had interviewed several candidates for the position of Fed Chair. Former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and current governor Jerome Powell were the names that caught the market's attention. Warsh has been a vocal critic of the Fed's slow unwind from the unusual post-crisis monetary policies, and is thus considered a monetary hawk who would want to raise rates higher, and faster, than the current FOMC. Powell is more pragmatic and would likely maintain the status quo at the Fed. The possibility of a more hawkish Fed chair has shown up in online prediction markets, where the "prices" of candidates that are perceived to be more hawkish (Warsh, John Taylor) rose while the prices of the more dovish candidates (Janet Yellen, Gary Cohn) fell (Chart 11). Right now, the online punters have Warsh in the lead, but the intraday "trading" has been volatile. The intersection of U.S. fiscal policy and monetary policy will be critical to determine the future path of U.S. bond yields over the next year. Right now, it appears that there is too much flattening priced into the Treasury curve relative to the expected path of the funds rate and inflation, as the Fed is unlikely to raise real rates much beyond their current projections. That could change if the Trump tax cuts can deliver a faster pace of productivity growth and higher equilibrium real interest rates. Although the post-war history of the U.S. shows that tax cuts by themselves do not raise the potential growth rate of the economy unless they lead to a major increase in investment spending, and even then the impact takes years to be seen (Chart 12). Chart 11Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Chart 12Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth For now, we think it makes more sense to bet against the substantial flattening in the forwards by positioning for a steeper Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Tapering: Steepening Yield Curves Through The Term Premium The other major factor that should steepen global yield curves in the next several months is the expectation of a change in policy from the ECB. The central bank has been gently preparing the market since the early summer for a shift to a less accommodative policy stance, in response to robust economic growth and slowly rising core inflation (Chart 13). A decision on the changes to the asset purchase program will take place at the October 26th ECB policy meeting. This will involve a reduction in the monthly pace of bond buying and, likely, some guidance as to when the asset purchase program will end. A change in short-term interest rates is highly unlikely before the bond purchases have been fully tapered, as this would go against the current forward guidance from the ECB that states that interest rates will remain at low levels well after the purchases have stopped. As we have discussed throughout this year, we see the ECB having no choice but to begin tapering its asset purchase program. The deflationary tail risks from 2014/15 have faded and, perhaps more importantly, the ECB is running into operational constraints on which bonds it can continue to buy. A likely outcome will be an announcement that the pace of bond buying will slow from the current €60bn/month to least ½ of that pace starting in January 2018. At mid-year, the policy will likely be reevaluated and, if the economy has not slowed materially and/or inflation rolled over, a full tapering of the bond buying would be announced, ending at the end of 2018 or in the first quarter of 2019. A rate hike would not take place until late 2019, which is where the market is currently priced. In the absence of rate hikes, most of the impact on Euro Area bond yields from the tapering will come from a widening of the term premium on longer-maturity bonds. If the pace of growth slows to zero, this could result in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield returning all the way back to 1% (bottom two panels). This would still be a very low yield by historical standards, in line with structurally lower growth rates and high government debt levels in Europe. But the path to that 1% yield would be very damaging for bond returns as Euro Area yield curves bear-steepen. While the link between our estimates of the term premiums in the major developed markets is not airtight, there has been a loose correlation between them during the post-crisis "quantitative easing" era (Chart 14). If recent history is any guide, a slower pace of ECB bond buying should coincide with steeper global yield curves, all else equal. All else is likely NOT equal, as an unruly response of risk assets and currency markets to a tapering could alter the likely path of growth and inflation expectations and, eventually, interest rates. But, at this moment, an ECB taper is more likely to result in steeper global yield curves. Chart 13An ECB Taper Will Result In##BR##Higher Term Premia In Europe... Chart 14...And Perhaps In Other##BR##Bond Markets, As Well Bottom Line: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Less Dovish Rhetoric Is Justified", dated September 26th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf 3 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Oil prices have hit our target, but more upside is likely. President Trump's tax proposal has arrived and the Trump trades have responded. Surging M&A activity is not a sign of a market top. The supports are all in place for a robust period of U.S. capital spending. We expect another solid earnings season in Q3, with little impact from the hurricanes. Feature The S&P 500, Treasury yields and the dollar all rose last week, with the S&P hitting a new all-time high, even as 10-year Treasury yields hit a 2-month high. The sweet spot for risk assets has been extended by the rise in oil prices and rising prospects for tax cuts in the U.S. M&A activity will continue, which is market bullish because it has not yet reached frothy levels. Moreover, capex is blasting off, which will give growth (and EPS) another boost. The downtrends in both Treasury yields and the dollar this year are over, and they both have more upside given that economic growth and underlying inflation are both improving. Moreover, the FOMC is still in a position to deliver on a December rate hike with 2-3 additional hikes in 2018, which will be a wake-up call for bonds and will reverse this year's dollar weakness. More Upside In Oil Prices Last week, both Brent ($57.50/bbl) and WTI ($51.60/bbl) hit the midpoints of the ranges set by our commodity and energy strategists earlier this year. This milestone provides us with an opportunity to revisit BCA's stance on the oil market. OPEC's deal to cut production will be extended to at least June 2018. Based on BCA's latest assessment of the global oil market,1 OPEC 2.0 will fall short of reducing visible inventories to their 5-year average if the coalition's production cut agreement expires which was initially agreed upon in March 2018. Extending OPEC 2.0's cuts through December 2018 would nudge OECD commercial inventories closer to levels originally targeted by OPEC 2.0 at the end of last year (Chart 1). Therefore, in 2018 we expect WTI to average slightly less than $57.50/bbl and Brent to average just under $59/bbl. Accordingly, there is a higher risk that prices will exceed the upper end of our WTI range ($45/bbl to $65/bbl) with greater frequency next year. Furthermore, BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy team has raised its global oil demand forecasts for both 2017 and 2018; increased demand will support prices in the next 12 months (Chart 2). Chart 1OPEC 2.0 Needs To Extend Cuts,##BR##To Reduce Global Inventories Chart 2Base Case For BCA Oil Supply-Demand Balances##BR##Reflects June 2018 Expiry Of OPEC 2.0 Cuts Geopolitical risks in Iraq and an escalation in supply disruptions add to BCA's bullish view. The Kurd's vote for independence from Iraq last week will elevate tensions in the region and could trigger a civil war. If a war breaks out over Kirkuk, it will lead to production cuts. Furthermore, civil war in Iraq would reduce the flow of FDI into Iraq's oil infrastructure, further crimping output. Moreover, Russia, which supports the Kurd's fight, would also benefit from high oil prices. Oil production wildcards in 2017 mostly favored more oil output. However, in 2018, supply disruptions will curtail global oil output. Bottom Line: Additional supply cuts, higher demand, elevated tensions in Iraq and a normal spate of supply disruptions, all suggest that there is upside risk to our $45-$65 stance on WTI. A risk to this forecast is a sharply higher dollar linked to expansionary fiscal policy. Tax Cuts Imminent Chart 3Trump Trades Making A Comeback As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service predicted last month, President Trump's long-awaited tax plan will likely be enacted in Q1 2018. Trump and the Republicans in Congress, still desperate for a legislative win after again failing to repeal and replace Obamacare, introduced the proposal last week. However, the plan must clear several hurdles before it becomes law. First, the proposals may run afoul of both deficit hawks and moderates in the Congress' Republican caucus. The initial framework has tax decreases, but no revenue or spending offsets. The implication is that the package would blow out the deficit, alienating the fiscal conservatives. Moderates may not like the lack of cuts for the middle class. Democrats have not yet had their say. The CBO still must score the legislation, and even with dynamic scoring2 which counts on stronger economic growth to boost revenues and reduce outlays for automatic stabilizers and some social programs, it will add to the deficit. This may also cause an uproar in Congress. Nonetheless, on a positive note, Trump has the support of the influential House Ways and Means Committee, as well as the Senate Finance Committee. This was not the case with the Obamacare repeal and replace when the President and his GOP allies were at odds. First and foremost, the GOP-led Congress needs to pass a budget resolution, expected by the end of October. Congress considers the President's request as it formulates a budget resolution, which both houses of Congress must pass. Bottom Line: Investors should watch the response of Congressional Republicans to Trump's tax proposals. A lukewarm reception would indicate that investors' renewed optimism may be premature. The Trump trades have made a comeback in the past two weeks and will continue to be profitable if the current proposal (or something similar) is signed into law in Q1 2018 (Chart 3). If Trump and the GOP could extend the tax cuts into broader tax reform, it would provide a lift to corporate M&A activity. Little Froth From M&A Market U.S. merger and acquisition (M&A) volume peaked along with U.S. equity prices in the late 1990s and mid-2000s, but another top in the current deal market does not signal a top in equity prices. Deal volume (in dollars) and relative to market cap peaked in 1999, again in 2007, and more recently in mid-2015, before a 13% pullback in the S&P 500 in late 2015 and early 2016 (Chart 4). Although not shown on the chart, deal volume surpassed its late 1980s' pinnacle in 1995, five years before equity markets reached record highs in 2000. Through August, corporate takeovers relative to GDP matched those prior heights, but remained below the 1999, 2007 and 2015 tops as a percentage of market cap. Furthermore, global or cross-border M&A, a better indicator of market zest than U.S.-only activity, has not eclipsed the peaks in 2007. Measured against both global GDP and market cap, worldwide corporate combinations are below their 2015 zenith and well below the 2007 peak. At just 7% in 2016, the GDP-based metric was significantly under the mid-2000s pinnacle of 10%. That said, it is difficult to analyze this in context as the time series does not reach back to the late 1990s, which were the boom years for M&A. Bottom Line: Booming M&A activity is not a sign of froth in equity markets but it is a sign that animal spirts are stirring. Overall net equity withdrawal (which includes the net impact of IPOs, share buybacks, and M&A) has not been out of line with previous economic expansions (Chart 5). Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. The uptrend in capital spending is another sign of a shift in animal spirits. Chart 4Roaring M&A Volume Not##BR##A Sign Of A Market Peak Chart 5Comparison Of Corporate Outlays Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Capital Spending Blasting Off The capital spending outlook remains bright despite the recent loss of momentum in industrial production, as indicated by BCA's aggregate for IP in the advanced economies (Chart 6). This is disconcerting because global and regional industrial production are important indicators of both economic growth and corporate earnings. The recent softening is due to a few factors. Much of it is linked to weakness in the U.S. where hurricanes affected the August figures. However, most of our leading indicators remain constructive. Chart 7 presents simple models for real GDP growth for the G4 economies based on our household and capital spending indicators. Real GDP growth will continue to accelerate for the G4 economies, according to the model. BCA's aggregate consumer indicator for the G4 appears to have peaked, but the capex indicator is blasting off. The bullish capital spending reading is unanimous across the major economies. Robust capital goods imports for our 20-country aggregate supports the view that "animal spirits" are stirring in boardrooms in the advanced economies. These imports and BCA's capital spending indicators suggest that the small pullback in advanced-economy industrial production will not last, purchasing managers' indexes will remain elevated, and the acceleration in global export activity is only starting (Chart 7). Despite the lack of progress in Washington on repealing Obamacare and enacting tax cuts, even the U.S. small business sector has shifted into a higher gear in terms of hiring and capital spending, according to the NFIB survey (not shown). Moreover, both BCA's real and nominal U.S. capex models, driven by sturdy capital goods orders, elevated ISM readings and surging sentiment on capex, point to strong business spending in the next few quarters (Chart 8). Chart 6Animal Spirits Are Stirring... Chart 7...Contributing To Stronger G4 Economic Growth Chart 8Prospects For U.S. Capex Are Good Bottom Line: Business capital spending remains sturdy and it will lift overall GDP in 2H despite the recent severe weather. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy strategists note3 that U.S. industrial machinery manufacturers should be particularly well positioned to see earnings growth outpace the rest of the S&P 500. Stay overweight industrials. Moreover, above-potential GDP growth will keep the Fed on track for gradual tightening this year, and supports BCA's position of stocks over bonds. Stout capital spending will be a theme as the Q3 earnings season unfolds in the next six weeks. Will Hurricanes Impact Q3 Earnings? Chart 9Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon The Q3 earnings season will be above average and the BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth will hit roughly 20% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 9). The consensus anticipates a 6% year-over-year increase in EPS in Q3 2017 versus Q3 2016, and 12% for 2017. Energy and technology will likely lead the way in earnings growth in Q3, and utilities and telecom will again be the laggards. The favorable profit picture for Q3 and the rest of the year partly reflects the rebound in oil prices, which are expected to swell the energy sector's EPS by 134%. The positive picture also mirrors the sweet spot of rising top-line growth and still muted labor costs, which are driving a countercyclical rally in profit margins. Investors and corporate executives will focus in Q3 on the improving economic conditions in Europe and the EM, the U.S. dollar, the sustainability of margins, and the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. President Trump's tax proposal will also be vetted during conference call Q&A's, as investors drill managements on the implications of tax cuts on their operations. Rising interest rates may also demand attention from some analysts because the 10-year Treasury yield in Q3 2017 was 45 bps above Q2 2016 and rose sharply in the final weeks of the third quarter. Guidance from CEOs and CFOs on trends in Q4 2017 and beyond are more important than the actual Q3 results (Chart 10). Investors should guard against managements' over-optimism because earnings growth forecasts almost always move lower over time. Chart 10Unusual Stability In '17 And '18 EPS Estimates In Q3, as in Q2, firms with elevated overseas sales should benefit from the improved growth profile in Europe, Japan and the EM. Global GDP growth projections for this year and next have steadily perked up, in sharp contrast with prior years when forecasters have relentlessly lowered GDP estimates. The U.S. dollar, which has been only a small drag on EPS in recent quarters, should become a modest plus in Q3; the dollar is down by 3% versus a year ago against a broad basket of currencies. Moreover, in the most recent Beige Book (September 6), mentions of a "strong dollar" declined by 4% compared with a year ago, indicating that the stronger currency has faded as a primary concern of managements in recent months. Nonetheless, BCA's view is that the dollar will appreciate by another 10% in the next 12-18 months. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 2.5 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. Another up leg in the dollar, on its own, should not provide a substantial headwind for the stock market. Indeed, the dollar would only climb in the context of robust U.S. economic growth and an expanding corporate top line. The timely enactment of Trump's tax proposal would boost the greenback. Investors are skeptical that margins can advance in Q3 for the fifth consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next quarter or two, but the secular "mean reversion" of margins will resume beyond that time. The effect of Harvey and Irma on Q3 results will be muted for the S&P 500 and most sectors, but several weather-sensitive industries (insurance, airlines, chemicals, refining, leisure, etc.) will see significant disruptions. Charts 11A and 11B show that the impact of major hurricanes does not alter the pre-landfall trajectory of S&P 500 earnings forecasts. Earnings estimates for the energy, industrial and utilities sectors (relative to the S&P) tend to move higher after storms, while relative EPS growth in the materials and staples sectors lag behind. Chart 11AImpact Of Major Hurricanes##BR##On Forward EPS Estimates... Chart 11B...Is Muted For S&P 500##BR##And Most Sectors Bottom Line: Look for another solid performance for earnings and margins in Q3 and the rest of 2017, supporting our stocks-over-bonds stance for this year. However, it may be tougher sledding in 2018 when earnings growth begins to moderate and margins begin to "mean revert". Higher inflation, a more active Fed and a stronger dollar will be headwinds for earnings starting in the early part of 2018. FOMC Unified Yet Divided Chart 12Recent Inflation Readings##BR##Challenge The Fed's View U.S. inflation is likely to trend higher over the coming months as a variety of one-off factors that depressed inflation earlier this year fall out of the equation. That said, the August PCE deflator challenges that view (Chart 12). Core PCE inflation slowed further to 1.3%, down from 1.4% last month. In fact, core PCE inflation of 1.3% is at the exact same level as when the Fed delivered its first rate hike in December 2015. Moreover, the diffusion index dipped back to zero, implying the price weakness was widespread. The rollover in the PCE this year is consistent with the soft CPI readings. However, Fed officials highlight the trend in underlying inflation (Chart 12, panel 4) as they make the case for gradual rate hikes. Risk assets are unlikely to suffer if inflation rises towards the Fed's target against the backdrop of stronger growth. However, if inflation moves above the Fed's target due to brewing supply bottlenecks, the Fed will have little choice but to pick up the pace of rate hikes. This could unsettle markets and sow the seeds for the next recession, which we tentatively expect to occur in the second half of 2019. The market is pricing in only 42 basis points of hikes between now and the end of next year. FOMC voting members agree that the path for the normalization of monetary policy should be gradual. However, the path of inflation has provoked squabbling in the past month (Diagram 1) in the Fed and regional branches. Even though the Fed is path-dependent rather than data-dependent, the consensus remains that low inflation is due to temporary factors and higher consumer prices should soon rebound, justifying a December 2017 rate hike. FRBNY President William Dudley remains committed to further gradual rate hikes, although he has been recently surprised by the shortfall of inflation from the FOMC's 2% long-run objective. Fed Chair Janet Yellen confidently backed Dudley's optimism, stating that "low inflation likely reflects factors whose influence should fade over time." But she also struck a cautious tone by highlighting the risks around the uncertainty for the inflation outlook. Yellen even conceded that the Fed would not rule out pausing its gradual rate hike cycle given that they "may have misjudged the strength of the labor market, the degree to which longer-run inflation expectations are consistent with the inflation objective, or even fundamental forces driving inflation". Diagram 1Unified On Gradual Path But Divided On Inflation Path To manage risks, Chair Yellen offered a prescription of scenarios to strengthen the case for a gradual path: "Moving too quickly risks over adjusting policy to head off projected developments that may not come to pass. A gradual approach is particularly appropriate in light of subdued inflation and a low neutral real interest rate, which imply that the FOMC will have only limited scope to cut the federal funds rate should the economy be hit with an adverse shock. But we should also be wary of moving too gradually. Without further modest increases in the federal funds rate over time, there is a risk that the labor market could eventually become overheated, potentially creating an inflationary problem down the road that might be difficult to overcome without triggering a recession." In contrast, dovish FOMC members are apprehensive about the outlook for higher inflation. Governor Lael Brainard, known for her influence on the consensus at the FOMC, needs more confirmation that inflation is moving towards the 2% objective. FRB Chicago President Charles Evans, a dove, but mostly in line with the FOMC consensus, also is skeptical about inflation overshooting its 2% target and is worried about a potential policy mistake. Even FRB Minneapolis President Kashkari, the most dovish and a known dissenter, does not see inflation spiraling out of control given that the economy is unlikely to overheat anytime soon. Not surprising, FOMC hawks Esther George (Kansas City) and Patrick Harker (Philadelphia) noted in speeches late last week that policy was still accommodative and that gradual rate hikes are in order. Ultimately, a pickup in inflation is required to convince the doves at the Fed that even gradual rate hikes are required. BCA's stance is that inflation will pick up over the next year as the unemployment rate falls further and the output gap closes. Bottom Line: The Fed is likely to raise rates in December and three or four more times in 2018. We recommend investors remain underweight duration. Nonetheless, the Treasury market remains unconvinced about the Fed's view on rates and inflation. The implication for investors is that although 10-year Treasury bond yields have risen sharply in recent weeks, we see more upside in yields. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Will Extend Cuts To June 2018," September 21, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," May 31, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Insight "Accelerating Global Manufacturing Means More Machines", dated September 22, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Liquidity is the lifeblood of the economy and financial markets, but it is a slippery concept that means different things to different people. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets, unless it is offset with increased T-bill issuance. However, a smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Liquidity has been an integral part of BCA's approach to financial markets going back to the early days of the company under the tutelage of Editor-in-Chief Hamilton Bolton from 1949 to 1968. Bolton was ahead of his time in terms of developing monetary indicators to forecast market trends. Back then, the focus was on bank flows such as the volume of checks cashed because capital markets were still developing and most credit flowed through the banking system. Times changed, monetary policy implementation evolved and financial markets became more important and sophisticated. When money targeting became popular among central banks in the 1970s, central bank liquidity analysis focused more on the broader monetary aggregates. These and other monetary data were used extensively by Anthony Boeckh, BCA's Editor-in-Chief from the 1968 to 2002, to forecast the economy and markets. He also highlighted the importance of balance sheet liquidity (holdings of liquid assets), and its interplay with rising debt levels. Martin Barnes continued with these themes when writing about the Debt Supercycle in the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. "Liquidity" is a slippery concept, and it means different things to different people. In this Special Report, we describe BCA's approach to liquidity and highlight its critical importance for financial markets. We provide a list of indicators to watch, and also outline how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. A Primer On Liquidity We believe there are four types of liquidity that are all interrelated: Central Bank Liquidity: Bank reserves lie at the heart of central bank liquidity. Reserves are under the direct control of the central bank, which are used as a tool to influence general monetary conditions in the economy. The latter are endogenous to the system and also depend on the private sector's desire to borrow, spend and hold cash. Bullish liquidity conditions are typically associated with plentiful bank reserves, low interest rates and strong growth in the monetary aggregates. Balance Sheet Liquidity: A high level of balance sheet liquidity means that plenty of short-term assets are available to meet emergencies. The desire of households, companies and institutional investors to build up balance sheet liquidity would normally increase when times are bad, and decline when confidence is high. Thus, one would expect strong economic growth to be associated with declining balance sheet liquidity, and vice versa when the economy is weak. Of course, deteriorating balance sheet liquidity during good times is a negative sign to the extent that households or business are caught in an illiquid state when the economy turns down, jobs are lost and loans are called. Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: This refers to the ability to make transactions in securities without triggering major changes in prices. Financial institutions provide market liquidity to securities markets through their trading activities. Funding Liquidity: The ability to borrow to fund positions in financial markets. Financial institutions provide funding liquidity to borrowers through their lending activities. The conditions under which these intermediaries can fund their own balance sheets, in turn, depend on the willingness of banks and the shadow banking system to interact with them. The BIS definition of funding liquidity is a broad concept that captures a wide range of channels. It includes the capacity of intermediaries that participate in the securitization chain to access the necessary funding to originate loans, to acquire loans for packaging into securities, and finance various kinds of guarantees. The availability and turnover of collateral for loans is also very important for generating funding liquidity, as we discuss below. These types of liquidity are interrelated in various ways, and can positively or negatively reinforce each other. It is the interaction of these factors that determines the economy's overall ease of financing. See Box II-1 for more details. BOX II-1 How Liquidity Is Inter-Related Central bank liquidity, which is exogenously determined, is the basis for private liquidity creation (the combination of market transaction and funding liquidity). The central bank determines the short-term risk-free rate and the official liquidity that is provided to the banking system. If the central bank hikes rates or provides less official liquidity, appetite for private lending begins to dry up. Private sector liquidity is thus heavily influenced by monetary policy, but can develop a life of its own, overshooting to the upside and downside with swings in investor confidence and risk tolerance. Financial market liquidity and funding liquidity are closely interrelated. When times are good, markets are liquid and funding liquidity is ample. But when risk tolerance takes a hit, a vicious circle between market transaction and funding liquidity develops. The BIS highlights the procyclical nature of private liquidity, which means that it tends to exhibit boom-bust cycles that generate credit excesses that are followed by busts.1 The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 is a perfect example. The Fed lifted the fed funds rate by 400 basis points between 2004 and 2006. Nonetheless, the outsized contraction in private liquidity, resulting from the plunge in asset prices related to U.S. mortgage debt, was a key driver of the crash in risk asset prices. Liquidity Indicators: What To Watch (1) Monetary Liquidity Key measures of central bank liquidity include the monetary base and the broad money aggregates, such as M1 and M2 (Chart II-1). Central banks control the amount of reserves in the banking system, which is part of base money, but they do not control the broad monetary aggregates. The latter is determined by the desire to hold cash and bank deposits, as well as the demand and supply of credit. Box II-2 provides some background on the monetary transmission process and quantitative easing. BOX II-2 The Monetary Transmission Process And Qe Before the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, the monetary authorities set the level of short-term interest rates through active management of the level of bank reserves. Reserves were drained as policy tightened, and were boosted when policies eased. The level of bank reserves affected banks' lending behavior, and shifts in interest rates affected the spending and investment decisions of consumers and businesses. Of course, it has been a different story since the financial crisis. Once short-term interest rates reached the zero bound, the Fed and some other central banks adopted "quantitative easing" programs designed to depress longer-term interest rates by aggressively buying bonds and thereby stuffing the banking system with an excessive amount of reserves. Many feared the onset of inflation when QE programs were first announced because investors worried that this would contribute to a massive increase in credit and the overall money supply. Indeed, there could have been hyper-inflation if banks had gone on a lending spree. But this never happened. Banks were constrained by insufficient capital ratios, loan losses and intense regulation, while consumers and businesses had no appetite for acquiring more debt. The result was that the money multiplier - the ratio of broad money to the monetary base - collapsed (top panel in Chart II-1). Bank lending standards eventually eased and credit demand recovered. Broad money growth has been volatile since 2007 but, despite quantitative easing, it has been roughly in line with the decade before. The broad aggregates lost much of their predictive power after the 1980s. Financial innovation, such as the use of debit cards and bank machines, changed the relationship between broad money on one hand, and the economy or financial markets on the other. Despite the structural changes in the economy, investors should still keep the monetary aggregates and the other monetary indicators discussed below in their toolbox. While the year-to-year wiggles in M2, for example, have not been good predictors of growth or inflation on a one or two year horizon, Chart II-2 shows that there is a long-term relationship between money and inflation when using decade averages. Chart II-1The Monetary Aggregates Chart II-2Long-Run Relationship Between M2 And Inflation Other monetary indicators to watch: M2 Divided By Nominal GDP (Chart II-3): When money growth exceeds that of nominal GDP, it could be interpreted as a signal that there is more than enough liquidity to facilitate economic activity. The excess is then available to purchase financial assets. Monetary Conditions Index (Chart II-3): This combines the level of interest rates and the change in the exchange rate into one indicator. The MCI has increased over the past year, indicating a tightening of monetary conditions, but is still very low by historical standards. Dollar Based Liquidity (Chart II-3): This includes Fed holdings of Treasurys and U.S. government securities held in custody for foreign official accounts. Foreign Exchange Reserves (Chart II-3): Central banks hold reserves in the form of gold, or cash and bonds denominated in foreign currencies. For example, when the People's Bank of China accumulates foreign exchange as part of its management of the RMB, it buys government bonds in other countries, thereby adding to liquidity globally. Interest Rates Minus Nominal GDP Growth (Chart II-4): Nominal GDP growth can be thought of as a proxy for the return on capital. If interest rates are below the return on capital, then there is an incentive for firms to borrow and invest. The opposite is true if interest rates are above GDP growth. Currently, short-term rates are well below nominal GDP, signaling that central bank liquidity is plentiful. Chart II-3Monetary Indicators (I) Chart II-4Monetary Indicators (II) (2) Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-5 presents the ratio of short-term assets to total liabilities for the corporate and household sectors. It is a measure of readily-available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on the balance sheet. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. Households are also highly liquid when short-term assets are compared to income. Liquidity as a share of total discretionary financial portfolios is low, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. The banking system is being forced to hold more liquid assets under the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio requirement (Chart II-6). This is positive from the perspective of reducing systemic risk, but it has negative implications for funding liquidity, as we will discuss below. Chart II-5Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-6Bank Balance Sheet Liquidity (3) Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: Transactions volumes and bid-ask spreads are the main indicators to watch to gauge financial market transaction liquidity. There was a concern shortly after the GFC that the pullback in risk-taking by important market-makers could severely undermine market liquidity, leading to lower transaction volumes and wider bid-ask spreads. The focus of concern was largely on the corporate bond market given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 (Chart II-7). This represents a decline from over 10% of market cap to only 0.3%. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if market-making dealers fail to adequately match sellers with buyers during market downturns. Yet, as highlighted by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy team, corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis.2 Reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads. Other market participants, such as Exchange Traded Funds, have taken up the slack. Daily trading volume as a percent of market cap has returned to pre-Lehman levels in the U.S. high-yield market, although this is not quite the case for the investment-grade market (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Less Market Making Chart II-8Corporate Bond Trading Volume That said, it is somewhat worrying that average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed. This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. Thus, it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing. The bottom line is that financial market liquidity is not as good as in the pre-Lehman years. This is not a problem at the moment, but there could be some dislocations in the fixed-income space during the next period of severe market stress when funding liquidity dries up. (3) Funding Liquidity: There are few direct measures of funding liquidity. Instead, one can look for its "footprint" or confirming evidence, such as total private sector credit. If credit is growing strongly, it is a sign that funding liquidity is ample. Box II-3 explains why international credit flows are also important to watch for signs of froth in lending. BOX II-3 The Importance Of International Credit Flows The BIS highlights that swings in international borrowing amplify domestic credit trends. Cross border lending tends to display even larger boom-bust cycles than domestic credit, as can be seen in the major advanced economies in the lead up to the GFC, as well as some Asian countries just before the Asian crisis in the late 1990s (Chart II-9). When times are good, banks and the shadow banking system draw heavily on cross-border sources of funds, such that international credit expansion tends to grow faster during boom periods than the credit granted domestically by banks located in the country. Since G4 financial systems intermediate a major share of global credit, funding conditions within the G4 affect funding conditions globally, as BIS research shows.3 This research also demonstrates that financial cycles have become more highly correlated across economies due to increased financial integration. Booms in credit inflows from abroad are also associated with a low level of the VIX, which is another sign of ample funding liquidity conditions (Chart II-10). These periods of excessive funding almost always end with a financial crisis and a spike in the VIX. Chart II-9International Credit Is Highly Cyclical Chart II-10International Credit Booms Lead Spikes In The VIX Other measures of funding liquidity to watch include: Chart II-11Market Measures Of Funding Liquidity Libor-OIS Spread (Chart II-11): This is a measure of perceived credit risk of LIBOR-panel banks. The spread tends to widen during periods of banking sector stress. Spreads are currently low by historical standards. However, libor will be phased out by 2021, such that a replacement for this benchmark rate will have to be found by then. Bond-CDS Basis (Chart II-11): The basis is roughly the average difference between each bond's yield spread to Treasurys and the cost of insuring the bond in the CDS market. Arbitrage should keep these two spreads closely aligned, but increases in funding costs tied to balance sheet constraints during periods of market stress affect this arbitrage opportunity, allowing the two spreads to diverge. The U.S. high-yield or investment grade bond markets are a good bellweather, and at the moment they indicate relatively good funding liquidity. FX Basis Swap (Chart II-11): This is analogous to the bond-CDS basis. It reflects the cost of hedging currencies, which is critically important for international investors and lending institutions. The basis swap widens when there is financial stress, reflecting a pullback in funding liquidity related to currencies. The FX swap basis widened during the GFC and, unlike other spreads, has not returned to pre-Lehman levels (see below). Bank Leverage Ratios (Chart II-12): The ratio of loans to deposits is a measure of leverage in the banking system. Banks boost leverage during boom times and thereby provide more loans and funding liquidity to buy securities. In the U.S., this ratio has plunged since 2007 and shows no sign of turning up. Primary Dealers Securities Lending (Chart II-13): This is a direct measure of funding liquidity. Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. Historically, shifts in dealer lending have been correlated with bid-ask spreads in the Treasury market. Securities lending is also correlated with the S&P 500, although it does not tend to lead the stock market. Dealer loans soared prior to 2007, before collapsing in 2008. Total loans have recovered, but have not reached pre-crisis highs, consistent with stricter regulations that forced the deleveraging of dealer balance sheets. Chart II-12U.S. Bank Leverage Chart II-13Securities Lending And Margin Debt NYSE Margin Debt (Chart II-13): Another direct measure of funding liquidity. The uptrend in recent years has been steep, although it is less impressive when expressed relative to market cap. Bank Lending Standards (Chart II-14): These surveys reflect bank lending standards for standard loans to the household or corporate sectors, but their appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is no doubt highly correlated. Lending standards tightened in 2016 due to the collapse in oil prices, but they have started to ease again this year. Table II-1 provides a handy list of liquidity indicators split into our four categories. Taking all of these indicators into consideration, we would characterize liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as the period just prior to the Lehman event. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the GFC, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. Chart II-14Bank Lending Standards Table II-1Liquidity Indicators To Watch Fed Balance Sheet Shrinkage: What Impact On Liquidity? Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart II-15 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. Chart II-16 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following last week's FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasurys and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasurys and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart II-15G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart II-16Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.4 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). In terms of the impact of balance sheet shrinkage on overall liquidity conditions, it is useful to think about the four categories of liquidity described above. (1) Monetary Liquidity The re-absorption of excess reserves will mean that base money will contract (i.e. the sum of bank reserves held at the Fed and currency in circulation). However, we do not expect this to have a noticeable impact on the broader monetary aggregates, credit growth, the economy or inflation, outside of any effect it might have on the term premium in the bond market. The reasoning is that all those excess reserves did not have a major impact on growth and inflation when they were created in the first place. This was because the credit channel of monetary policy was blocked by a lack of demand (private sector deleveraging) and limited bank lending capacity (partly due to regulation). Banks were also less inclined to lend due to rising loan losses. Removing the excess reserves should have little effect on banks' willingness or ability to make new loans. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. Asset purchases supported both the economy and risk assets in part via a weaker dollar and to the extent that the policy lifted confidence in the system. But most importantly, QE depressed long-term interest rates, which are used to discount cash flows when valuing financial assets. QE boosted risk-seeking behavior and the search for yield, partly through the signaling mechanism that convinced investors that short-term rates would stay depressed for a long time. The result was a decline in measures of market implied volatility, such as the MOVE and VIX indexes. Could Bond Yields Spike? The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. As highlighted in the Overview section, there will be a sharp swing in the flow of G4 government bonds available to the private sector, from a contraction of US$600 billion in 2017 to an increase of US$200 billion in 2018. Focusing on the U.S. market, empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasurys could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio. The BCA U.S. Bond Strategy service argues that growing bank demand for Treasurys in the coming years will absorb much of the net flow of Treasurys that the Fed is no longer buying.5 As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but the point is that forward guidance will help to limit the impact of the shrinking Fed balance sheet on bond yields. Indeed, the Fed is trying hard to sever the link in investors' minds between balance sheet policy and signaling about future rate hikes, as highlighted by Chair Yellen's Q&A session following the September FOMC meeting. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. That said, much depends on inflation. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. (2) Funding Liquidity Chart II-17Tri-Party Repo Market Has Shrunk By unwinding its balance sheet, the Fed will be supplying securities into the market and removing cash. This will be occurring at a time when transactions in the tri-party repo market have fallen to less than half of their peak in 2007 due to stricter regulation (Chart II-17). This market has historically been an important source of short-term funding, helping to meet the secular rise in demand for short-term, low-risk instruments, largely from non-financial corporations, asset managers and foreign exchange reserve funds. If the Fed drains reserves from the system and T-bill issuance does not increase substantially to compensate, a supply shortage of short-maturity instruments could develop. We can see how this might undermine the Fed's ability to shift short-term interest rates higher under its new system of interest rate management, where reverse repos and the interest rate paid on reserves set the floor for other short-term interest rates. However, at the moment we do not see the risk that fewer excess reserves on its own will negatively affect funding liquidity. Again, any impact on funding liquidity would likely be felt via a sharp rise in interest rates and pullback in the portfolio balance effect, which would occur if inflation turns up. But this has more to do with rising interest rates than the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Indeed, balance sheet shrinkage could actually improve funding liquidity provided via the bilateral repo market, securities-lending, derivatives and prime brokerage channels. These are important players in the collateral supply chain. A recent IMF working paper emphasizes that collateral flows are just as important in credit creation as money itself.6 Collateral refers to financial instruments that are used as collateral to fund positions, which can be cash or cash-like equivalents. Since pledged collateral can be reused over and over, it can generate significantly more total lending than the value of the collateral itself. The Fed's overnight reverse-repo facility includes restrictions that the collateral accessed from its balance sheet can only be used in the tri-party repo system. Thus, the Fed's presence in the collateral market has reduced the "velocity of collateral." Table II-2 shows that the reuse rate of collateral, or its velocity, has fallen from 3.0 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2015. Table II-2Collateral Velocity The combination of tighter capital regulations and Fed asset purchases has severely limited the available space on bank balance sheets to provide funding liquidity. Regulations force banks to carry more capital for a given level of assets. Fed asset purchases have forced a large portion of those assets to be held as reserves, limiting banks' activity in the bilateral repo market. There is much uncertainty surrounding this issue, but it appears that an unwind the Fed's balance sheet will free up some space on bank balance sheets, possibly permitting more bilateral repo activity and thus a higher rate of collateral velocity. It may also relieve concerns about a shortage of safe-haven assets. Nonetheless, we probably will not see a return of collateral velocity to 2007 levels because stricter capital regulations will still be in place. What About Currency Swaps? Some have argued that this removal of cash could also lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.7 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart II-18). Chart II-18FX Basis Swap And Reserves One possible chain of events is that, as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model8 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories is correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Conclusions: Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. However, we believe that the bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Ryan Swift Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy 1 D. Domanski, I. Fender and P. McGuire, "Assessing Global Liquidity," BIS Quarterly Review (December 2011). 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017," dated July 18, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 E. Cerutti, S. Claessens and L. Ratnovski, "A Primer on 'Global Liquidity'," CEPR Policy Portal (June 8, 2014). 4 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017). 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind," dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 M. Singh, "Collateral Reuse and Balance Sheet Space," IMF Working Paper (May 2017). 7 Alexandra Scaggs, "Where would you prefer your balance sheet: Banks, or the Federal Reserve?" Financial Times Alphaville (April 13, 2017). 8 S. Avdjiev, W. Du, C. Koch, and Hyun S.Shin, "The dollar, bank leverage and the deviation from covered interest parity," BIS Working Papers No.592 (Revised July 2017).

Highlights We highlighted last month that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe havens given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for equities is continuing, but the potential for a correction remains elevated. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, although we may be at peak tensions with respect to North Korea. Our models point to an acceleration in growth in the major economies. Our capital spending indicators suggest that animal spirits are stirring in the business sector. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Stay long oil-related plays. There is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead. We do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization on its own to be a major headwind for risk assets. The bigger threat is a sudden and sharp re-assessment of the outlook for interest rates in the major countries. Our base-case view is that inflation will only grind higher in the major countries. It should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets, but the danger of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be on the conservative side. Feature It was 'risk on' in financial markets in September, despite a less dovish tone among the major central banks. The reason is that the synchronized global growth outlook continues to gather momentum, supporting the earnings backdrop, but inflation remains dormant in the major countries outside of the U.K. Investors believe that calm inflation readings will allow central banks to proceed cautiously and avoid taking risks with growth, extending the expansion in GDP and earnings. The North Korean situation changes from day to day, but investors appear to be more comfortable with it at the margin. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. Finally, rising oil prices will lift earnings in the energy patch. These developments spurred investors to embrace risk assets and carry trades again in September. However, value is poor and signs of froth are accumulating. For example, equity investors are employing record amounts of margin debt to lever up investments. The Bank for International Settlements highlighted in its Quarterly Review that margin debt outstanding in 2015 was higher than during the dotcom boom (and it has surely increased since then). The global volume of outstanding leveraged loans continues to set new highs even as covenant standards slip. Risk assets are being supported by a three-legged stool: solid earnings growth, low bond yields and depressed bond market volatility. The latter is a reflection of current market expectations that dormant inflation will continue to constrain central bankers. We agree that the economic growth and earnings outlook is positive on a 6-12 month horizon. The main item that could upset the sweet spot for risk assets, outside of a geopolitical event, is an awakening in inflation. This would shatter the consensus view that the bond market will remain well behaved. Markets are priced for little change in the inflation backdrop even in the long term. Our base-case view is that inflation will grind higher in the major countries, although it should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets in the next 6-12 months. But the risk of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be conservative (although slightly tilted to risk-over-safety). Getting Used To North Korea It appears that investors are becoming increasingly desensitized to provocation from the rogue state. Our geopolitical experts argued that the risk of a full-out war with the U.S. was less than 10%, but they warned that there could be a market-rattling political crisis or even a military skirmish before Pyongyang returned to the negotiating table. However, we may be at peak tensions now, based on several key developments over the past month. First, both China and Russia, two North Korean allies, have turned up the pressure. China appears to be enforcing sanctions according to Chinese trade data vis-à-vis North Korea (Chart I-1). Both China and Russia have also agreed to reduce fuel supplies. And there is evidence that U.S. and North Korea have held unofficial diplomatic talks behind the scenes. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. Chart I-1China Getting Tougher With NK We cannot rule out more goading from Kim Jong Un, especially with a busy political calendar in Asia this fall: the Korean Worker's Party's anniversary on October 10, the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle on October 11-25, Japanese elections on October 22, and Trump's visit to the region in mid-November. Nevertheless, it would require a major provocation (i.e. a direct attack on the U.S. or its allies) for Pyongyang to escalate tensions from current levels. This would require the North to be very reckless with its own strategic assets, given that the U.S. would likely conduct a proportional retaliation against any serious attack. The recent backup in Treasury yields and yen pullback suggest that investors do not think tensions will escalate that far. We agree, but obviously the situation is fluid. Trump Trades Back In Play? U.S. politics have also become more equity-friendly and bond-bearish at the margin. The risk of a debt ceiling standoff has been delayed until December following President Trump's deal with the Democrats. We do not think that this represents a radical shift toward bipartisanship, but it is warning from the President that the GOP had better get cracking on tax legislation. The House Budget committee passed a FY2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. Such a budget resolution approved by the Congress as a whole would allow for tax cuts that are not fully offset by spending cuts, with the proviso that the tax reductions sunset after a defined number of years. It is difficult to see tax legislation being passed before year end, but the first quarter of 2018 is certainly possible. Markets will begin to price in the legislation well before it is passed, which means that the so-called Trump trades are likely to see a revival. In particular, the legislation should favor small caps and boost the dollar. This year's devastating hurricane activity will also lift U.S. growth in 2018. History shows that natural disasters have only a passing effect on the U.S. economy and financial markets. Following the short-term negative economic impact, rebuilding adds to growth with the Federal government footing part of the bill. A 2016 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that federal spending after major hurricanes can add as much as 0.6% to GDP. CBO notes that the lion's share of the economic impact is in the first year after a storm, with most of those expenditures helping victims to obtain food and shelter, fund search and rescue operations, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal outlays for public infrastructure occur after the first year and provide a much smaller lift to GDP (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Federal Government Outlays For Hurricane Relief Oil: Inventories Are Correcting Chart I-3Oil Inventory Correction To Lift Prices It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Our energy strategists highlight that global oil demand is booming, at a time when the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) lowered its estimated shale oil output by 200,000 bpd for the third quarter. This confirms our contention that the EIA has overestimated the pace of the shale production response during 2017. Taken together, these factors helped to improve the global net demand/supply balance by 600,000 bpd. The drawdown in global oil inventories is thus likely to continue (Chart I-3). Looking to next year, crude prices could go even higher with an extension of the OPEC/Russian production cuts beyond March 2018 and continued strong growth in global oil demand. The synchronized global expansion is reflected in rising oil demand from all parts of the world. Soft Industrial Production Readings Won't Last We have highlighted global and regional industrial production as important indicators of both economic growth corporate earnings. It is therefore a little disconcerting that our aggregate for industrial production in the advanced economies has suddenly lost momentum (Chart I-4). We are inclined to fade the recent softening for a few reasons. First, much of it is due to weakness in the U.S. where hurricanes affected the August figures. Second, most of our leading indicators remain very constructive. Chart I-5 present a simple model for real GDP growth for the G4 economies based on our consumer and capital spending indicators. Real GDP growth will continue to accelerate for the G4 economies as a group according to the model. Our aggregate consumer indicator appears to have peaked at a high level, but the capex indicator is blasting off. The bullish capital spending reading is unanimous across the major economies (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Animal Spirits Are Stirring... Chart I-5...Contributing To Stronger G4 Economic Growth Chart I-6Capital Goods Indicators Are Surging The Eurozone is particularly strong on both the consumer and business fronts, suggesting that euro strength has not undermined growth. Conversely, the U.K. is at the weak end of the spectrum based on the drop in its consumer spending indicator. This is the main reason why we do not believe the Bank of England will be able to make good on its warning of a rate hike this year (see below). Robust capital goods imports for our 20-country aggregate supports the view that animal spirits are stirring in boardrooms in the advanced economies (Chart I-4, third panel). These imports and our capital spending indicators suggest that the small pullback in advanced-economy industrial production will not last, purchasing managers' indexes will remain elevated, and the acceleration in global export activity is just getting started. Even U.S. small business sector has shifted into a higher gear in terms of hiring and capital spending according to the NFIB survey. These trends will favor industrial stocks, especially versus utilities. Central Banks Shedding Dovish Feathers The synchronized global growth pickup is also reflected in our Central Bank Monitors, which are all near or above the zero line (Chart I-7). The Monitors gauge pressure on central banks to adjust policy. Current readings are consistent with the relatively more hawkish tone by central bankers in Canada, the U.S., the Eurozone and the U.K. Chart I-7Central Bank Monitors Support Less Dovish Policymakers The violent reaction in the gilt market to the Bank of England's hint that it could hike rates in the next few months highlights the vulnerability of bond markets to any shift by central bankers in a less dovish direction. In this case, we do not believe the BoE will be able to follow through with its rate hike plan. The leading economic indicators are softening and inflation is about to roll over now that the pound has bottomed. In contrast, bunds are quite vulnerable to a more hawkish tilt at the European Central Bank (ECB). Eurozone policymakers confirmed at their September meeting that they plan to announce in October a reduction in the asset purchase program, to take effect in 2018. The ECB revised up its growth forecast for 2017, and left the subsequent two years unchanged. The inflation forecast was trimmed by 0.1 percentage points in 2018 and 2019. The fact that this year's surge in the euro was not enough to move the needle much on the ECB's projections speaks volumes about the central bank's confidence in the current European economic expansion, as well as its comfort level with the rising currency. Our fixed income strategists believe that the full extent of ECB tapering is not yet fully discounted in the European bond market. Phillips Curve: It's Not Dead, Just Resting Chart I-8U.S. Inflation Turning to the Fed, the bond market did not get the dovish tone it was expecting from September's FOMC meeting. Policymakers left a December rate hike on the table, as Chair Yellen downplayed this year's lagging inflation data as well as the impact of the hurricanes on the economy. Not surprisingly, the odds of a December rate hike have since jumped to 70%. The Fed announced its plan to begin shrinking its balance sheet beginning in October. In the press conference, Yellen tried to disassociate balance sheet policy from the rate outlook. Balance sheet adjustment will be on autopilot, such that short-term interest rates will be the Fed's main policy instrument going forward. While the Fed plans to deliver another rate increase in December, it will require at least a small rise in inflation. Policymakers were no doubt pleased that annual CPI core inflation edged up in August and the 3-month rate of change has moved back to 2% (Chart I-8). The CPI diffusion index also moved above the zero line, indicating that the soft patch in the inflation data may be over, although the diffusion index for the PCE inflation data fell back to the zero line. Table I-1 presents the major contributors to the 0.9 percentage point decline in the year-over-year headline CPI inflation rate since February. Energy accounts for the majority of the decline, at 0.6 percentage points. New cars, shelter, medical services and wireless telephone services account for the remainder. The deflationary wireless price effect is now unwinding, but medical services is a wildcard and our shelter model suggests that this large part of the CPI index will probably not help to lift inflation this year. Thus, higher inflation must come largely from non-shelter core services, which is the component most closely correlated with wages. Investors remain unconvinced by Yellen's assertion that the soft patch in the inflation data reflects transitory factors. Indeed, market-based long-term inflation expectations remain well below the Fed's target, and they even fell a little following the FOMC meeting. Table I-1Contribution To Change In Headline ##br##Inflation (February -August, 2017) One FOMC member is becoming increasingly alarmed by the market's disbelief that the Fed will hit the 2% target even in the long run (Chart I-9). In a recent speech, Governor Brainard noted that both market-based and survey evidence on inflation expectations have drifted lower in the post-Lehman years. More recently, long-term inflation breakeven rates and CPI swaps have been surprisingly sticky in the face of the rebound in oil prices. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, then inflation's long-run trend would be altered and monetary policy would become less effective. Japan is a glaring example of what could be the endpoint. Brainard's fears have not yet affected the FOMC consensus, which is loath to throw the Phillips curve model into the dust bin just yet. We agree that the Phillips curve is not dead. Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist for the BCA Global Investment Strategy Service, argued in a recent Special Report that the often-cited reasons for why the Phillips curve has become defunct - decreased union bargaining power, a more globalized economy, and technological trends - are less convincing than they appear. The Fed simply has to be patient because the U.S. is only now reaching the kinked part of the Phillips Curve (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Worrying Trends For The FOMC Chart I-10U.S. Wage Growth Accelerates Once The Unemployment Rate Falls Below 5% (1997-2017) Moreover, our global fixed income team has made the case that the global output gap must be taken into consideration.1 Chart I-11 presents the percentage of OECD economies that have an unemployment rate below the NAIRU rate, along with inflation in the services and goods sectors of the developed markets. While the correlation between this global NAIRU indicator and realized inflation rates declined in the years after the recession, the linkages have improved over the past couple of years. The fact that the global NAIRU indicator is only now back to pre-Lehman levels suggests that inflationary pressure could finally be near an inflection point. Market expectations for the path of real GDP growth and the unemployment rate are roughly in line with the FOMC's central tendency forecast. However, the wide gulf between the FOMC and the market on the path of interest rates remains a potential catalyst for a correction in risk assets if market rates ratchet higher. Fed balance sheet runoff could also be problematic in this regard. QE Unwind: How Much Of A Risk? Many investors equate the surge in asset prices in the years after the Great Financial Crisis with central bank largesse. Won't a reversal of this policy be negative for both bonds and stocks? Fed balance sheet runoff, together with ECB tapering and less buying by the Bank of Japan, will certainly change the supply/demand backdrop for the G4 government bond markets in 2018. We have updated our projection for the net flow of government bonds available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by central banks and other official institutions (Chart I-12). The top panel shows that the net supply of Treasurys to the private sector never contracted in recent years, but the bottom panel highlights that the net supply of G4 government bonds as a group was negative for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Central banks and other official buyers had to bid-away bonds from the private sector during these years. Chart I-11Global Slack Matters Chart I-12Major Swing In Government ##br##Bond Supply In 2018 We project that the net supply will swing from a contraction of almost $600 billion in 2017 to a positive net flow of almost US$200 billion next year. The Fed's projected runoff accounts for most of the swing. The supply/demand effect might push up term premia a little. Nonetheless, as discussed in this month's Special Report beginning on page 19, the balance sheet unwind is not the key threat to bonds and stocks. Rather, the main risk is the overly benign central bank outlook that is priced into the bond market. Real 5-year bond yields, five years forward, are still extremely depressed because the market has discounted negative real short-term interest rates out to 2022 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Real Forward Short-Term Rates Time For The Nikkei To Shine Equity bourses took September's backup in bond yields in stride. Indeed, the S&P 500 and Nikkei broke to new highs during the month. The Euro Stoxx 50 also sprang to life, although has not yet reached fresh highs in local currency terms. The solid earnings backdrop remains a key support for the market. We highlighted our EPS forecasts in last month's report. Nothing of significance has changed on this front. The latest data suggest that operating margins may be peaking, but the diffusion index does not suggest an imminent decline (Chart I-14). Meanwhile, our upbeat economic assessment discussed above means that top line expansion should keep EPS growing solidly into the first half of 2018 at the global level. EPS growth will likely decelerate toward the end of next year to mid-single digits. Chart I-14Operating Margins Approaching A Peak? We still see a case for the Nikkei to outperform the S&P 500, at least in local currencies. Japan is on the cheap side according to our top-down indicator (Chart I-15). Japanese earnings are highly geared to economic growth at home and abroad. Japanese EPS is in an uptrend versus the U.S. in both local and common currencies (Chart I-16). We do not expect to see a peak in EPS growth until mid-2018, a good six months after the expected top in the U.S. Moreover, an Abe win in the October 22 election would mean that policy will remain highly reflationary in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Chart I-15Valuation: Japan Cheap To The U.S., But Not Europe Chart I-16Japanese Earnings Outperforming The U.S. European stocks are a tougher call. On the plus side, the economy is flying high and there are no warning signs that this is about to end. There is hope for structural reform in France after Macron's election win this year. We give Macron's proposed labor market reforms high marks because they compare favorably with those of Spain and Germany, which helped to diminish structural unemployment in those two countries. Many doubt that Macron's reforms will see the light of day, but our geopolitical team believes that investors are underestimating the chances. The German election in September poured cold water on recent enthusiasm regarding accelerated European integration. This is because Merkel will likely have to deal with a larger contingent of Euroskeptics in the grand coalition that emerges in the coming months. However, we do not expect political developments in Germany to be a headwind for the Eurozone stock market. On the negative side, European stocks do not appear cheap to the U.S. after adjusting for the structural discount (Chart I-15). Moreover, this year's euro bull phase will take a bite out of earnings. As noted in last month's Overview, euro strength so far this year will lop three to four percentage points off of EPS growth by the middle of next year. Our model suggests that this will be overwhelmed by the robust economic expansion at home and abroad, but profit growth could fall to 5%, which is likely to be well short of that in the U.S. and Japan (local currency). Still, a lot of the negative impact of the currency on profits may already be discounted as forward earnings have been revised down. On balance, we remain overweight European stocks versus the U.S. (currency hedged). However, it appears that Japan has more latitude to outperform. Dollar: Finally Finding A Floor? Chart I-17Has The Dollar Found Bottom? The Fed's determination to stick with the 'dot plot' may have finally placed a floor under the dollar. Before the September FOMC meeting, the market had all but priced out any rate hikes between now and the end of 2018. Both the U.S. economic surprise index and the inflation surprise index have turned up relative to the G10 (Chart I-17). The dollar has more upside if we are past the period of maximum bond market strength and moving into in a window in which U.S. economic and inflation surprises will 'catch up' with the other major economies. Technically, investors appear to be quite short the dollar, especially versus the euro. Bullish sentiment on the euro is highlighted by the fact that the currency has deviated substantially from the interest rate parity relationship. Euro positioning is thus bullish the dollar from a contrary perspective. Nonetheless, our currency experts are more bullish the dollar versus the yen. Given that inflation expectations have softened in Japan and wage growth is still lacking, the Bank of Japan will have to stick with its zero percent 10-year JGB target. The yen will be forced lower versus the dollar as the U.S. yield curve shifts up. We also like the loonie. The Bank of Canada (BoC) pulled the trigger in September for the second time this year, lifting the overnight rate to 1%. Policymakers gave themselves some "wiggle room" on the outlook, but more tightening is on the way barring a significant slowdown in growth, another spike in the C$, or a housing meltdown. The statement said that the loonie's rise partly reflected the relative strength of the Canadian economy, which implies that it is justified by the fundamentals. It does not appear that the C$ has reached a "choke point" in the eyes of the central bank. Investment Conclusions: We highlighted in our last issue that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe haven assets given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for risk assets is continuing. We remain upbeat on global economic growth and earnings. Nonetheless, both stocks and bonds remain vulnerable to any upside surprises on inflation, especially in the U.S. While the positive trends in stock indexes and corporate bond spreads should continue over the coming 6-12 months, there is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead, which means that it is only a matter of time before inflation begins to find a little traction. Higher oil prices will also provide a tailwind for headline inflation. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, but we may be past the worst in terms of North Korean tension. We also do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization to be a major headwind for risk assets. Nonetheless, the anticipated swing the supply of G4 government bonds to private investors would serve to add to selling pressure in the fixed-income space if inflation is rising in the U.S. and/or Europe at the same time. In other words, the risk relates more to expected policy rates than the Fed's balance sheet. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long oil related plays, slightly short in duration in the fixed income space, and long inflation protection. We also recommend returning to long positions on the U.S. dollar. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 28, 2017 Next Report: October 26, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com II. Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind Liquidity is the lifeblood of the economy and financial markets, but it is a slippery concept that means different things to different people. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets, unless it is offset with increased T-bill issuance. However, a smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Liquidity has been an integral part of BCA's approach to financial markets going back to the early days of the company under the tutelage of Editor-in-Chief Hamilton Bolton from 1949 to 1968. Bolton was ahead of his time in terms of developing monetary indicators to forecast market trends. Back then, the focus was on bank flows such as the volume of checks cashed because capital markets were still developing and most credit flowed through the banking system. Times changed, monetary policy implementation evolved and financial markets became more important and sophisticated. When money targeting became popular among central banks in the 1970s, central bank liquidity analysis focused more on the broader monetary aggregates. These and other monetary data were used extensively by Anthony Boeckh, BCA's Editor-in-Chief from the 1968 to 2002, to forecast the economy and markets. He also highlighted the importance of balance sheet liquidity (holdings of liquid assets), and its interplay with rising debt levels. Martin Barnes continued with these themes when writing about the Debt Supercycle in the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. "Liquidity" is a slippery concept, and it means different things to different people. In this Special Report, we describe BCA's approach to liquidity and highlight its critical importance for financial markets. We provide a list of indicators to watch, and also outline how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. A Primer On Liquidity We believe there are four types of liquidity that are all interrelated: Central Bank Liquidity: Bank reserves lie at the heart of central bank liquidity. Reserves are under the direct control of the central bank, which are used as a tool to influence general monetary conditions in the economy. The latter are endogenous to the system and also depend on the private sector's desire to borrow, spend and hold cash. Bullish liquidity conditions are typically associated with plentiful bank reserves, low interest rates and strong growth in the monetary aggregates. Balance Sheet Liquidity: A high level of balance sheet liquidity means that plenty of short-term assets are available to meet emergencies. The desire of households, companies and institutional investors to build up balance sheet liquidity would normally increase when times are bad, and decline when confidence is high. Thus, one would expect strong economic growth to be associated with declining balance sheet liquidity, and vice versa when the economy is weak. Of course, deteriorating balance sheet liquidity during good times is a negative sign to the extent that households or business are caught in an illiquid state when the economy turns down, jobs are lost and loans are called. Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: This refers to the ability to make transactions in securities without triggering major changes in prices. Financial institutions provide market liquidity to securities markets through their trading activities. Funding Liquidity: The ability to borrow to fund positions in financial markets. Financial institutions provide funding liquidity to borrowers through their lending activities. The conditions under which these intermediaries can fund their own balance sheets, in turn, depend on the willingness of banks and the shadow banking system to interact with them. The BIS definition of funding liquidity is a broad concept that captures a wide range of channels. It includes the capacity of intermediaries that participate in the securitization chain to access the necessary funding to originate loans, to acquire loans for packaging into securities, and finance various kinds of guarantees. The availability and turnover of collateral for loans is also very important for generating funding liquidity, as we discuss below. These types of liquidity are interrelated in various ways, and can positively or negatively reinforce each other. It is the interaction of these factors that determines the economy's overall ease of financing. See Box II-1 for more details. BOX II-1 How Liquidity Is Inter-Related Central bank liquidity, which is exogenously determined, is the basis for private liquidity creation (the combination of market transaction and funding liquidity). The central bank determines the short-term risk-free rate and the official liquidity that is provided to the banking system. If the central bank hikes rates or provides less official liquidity, appetite for private lending begins to dry up. Private sector liquidity is thus heavily influenced by monetary policy, but can develop a life of its own, overshooting to the upside and downside with swings in investor confidence and risk tolerance. Financial market liquidity and funding liquidity are closely interrelated. When times are good, markets are liquid and funding liquidity is ample. But when risk tolerance takes a hit, a vicious circle between market transaction and funding liquidity develops. The BIS highlights the procyclical nature of private liquidity, which means that it tends to exhibit boom-bust cycles that generate credit excesses that are followed by busts.1 The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 is a perfect example. The Fed lifted the fed funds rate by 400 basis points between 2004 and 2006. Nonetheless, the outsized contraction in private liquidity, resulting from the plunge in asset prices related to U.S. mortgage debt, was a key driver of the crash in risk asset prices. Liquidity Indicators: What To Watch (1) Monetary Liquidity Key measures of central bank liquidity include the monetary base and the broad money aggregates, such as M1 and M2 (Chart II-1). Central banks control the amount of reserves in the banking system, which is part of base money, but they do not control the broad monetary aggregates. The latter is determined by the desire to hold cash and bank deposits, as well as the demand and supply of credit. Box II-2 provides some background on the monetary transmission process and quantitative easing. BOX II-2 The Monetary Transmission Process And Qe Before the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, the monetary authorities set the level of short-term interest rates through active management of the level of bank reserves. Reserves were drained as policy tightened, and were boosted when policies eased. The level of bank reserves affected banks' lending behavior, and shifts in interest rates affected the spending and investment decisions of consumers and businesses. Of course, it has been a different story since the financial crisis. Once short-term interest rates reached the zero bound, the Fed and some other central banks adopted "quantitative easing" programs designed to depress longer-term interest rates by aggressively buying bonds and thereby stuffing the banking system with an excessive amount of reserves. Many feared the onset of inflation when QE programs were first announced because investors worried that this would contribute to a massive increase in credit and the overall money supply. Indeed, there could have been hyper-inflation if banks had gone on a lending spree. But this never happened. Banks were constrained by insufficient capital ratios, loan losses and intense regulation, while consumers and businesses had no appetite for acquiring more debt. The result was that the money multiplier - the ratio of broad money to the monetary base - collapsed (top panel in Chart II-1). Bank lending standards eventually eased and credit demand recovered. Broad money growth has been volatile since 2007 but, despite quantitative easing, it has been roughly in line with the decade before. The broad aggregates lost much of their predictive power after the 1980s. Financial innovation, such as the use of debit cards and bank machines, changed the relationship between broad money on one hand, and the economy or financial markets on the other. Despite the structural changes in the economy, investors should still keep the monetary aggregates and the other monetary indicators discussed below in their toolbox. While the year-to-year wiggles in M2, for example, have not been good predictors of growth or inflation on a one or two year horizon, Chart II-2 shows that there is a long-term relationship between money and inflation when using decade averages. Chart II-1The Monetary Aggregates Chart II-2Long-Run Relationship Between M2 And Inflation Other monetary indicators to watch: M2 Divided By Nominal GDP (Chart II-3): When money growth exceeds that of nominal GDP, it could be interpreted as a signal that there is more than enough liquidity to facilitate economic activity. The excess is then available to purchase financial assets. Monetary Conditions Index (Chart II-3): This combines the level of interest rates and the change in the exchange rate into one indicator. The MCI has increased over the past year, indicating a tightening of monetary conditions, but is still very low by historical standards. Dollar Based Liquidity (Chart II-3): This includes Fed holdings of Treasurys and U.S. government securities held in custody for foreign official accounts. Foreign Exchange Reserves (Chart II-3): Central banks hold reserves in the form of gold, or cash and bonds denominated in foreign currencies. For example, when the People's Bank of China accumulates foreign exchange as part of its management of the RMB, it buys government bonds in other countries, thereby adding to liquidity globally. Interest Rates Minus Nominal GDP Growth (Chart II-4): Nominal GDP growth can be thought of as a proxy for the return on capital. If interest rates are below the return on capital, then there is an incentive for firms to borrow and invest. The opposite is true if interest rates are above GDP growth. Currently, short-term rates are well below nominal GDP, signaling that central bank liquidity is plentiful. Chart II-3Monetary Indicators (I) Chart II-4Monetary Indicators (II) (2) Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-5 presents the ratio of short-term assets to total liabilities for the corporate and household sectors. It is a measure of readily-available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on the balance sheet. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. Households are also highly liquid when short-term assets are compared to income. Liquidity as a share of total discretionary financial portfolios is low, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. The banking system is being forced to hold more liquid assets under the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio requirement (Chart II-6). This is positive from the perspective of reducing systemic risk, but it has negative implications for funding liquidity, as we will discuss below. Chart II-5Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-6Bank Balance Sheet Liquidity (3) Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: Transactions volumes and bid-ask spreads are the main indicators to watch to gauge financial market transaction liquidity. There was a concern shortly after the GFC that the pullback in risk-taking by important market-makers could severely undermine market liquidity, leading to lower transaction volumes and wider bid-ask spreads. The focus of concern was largely on the corporate bond market given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 (Chart II-7). This represents a decline from over 10% of market cap to only 0.3%. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if market-making dealers fail to adequately match sellers with buyers during market downturns. Yet, as highlighted by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy team, corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis.2 Reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads. Other market participants, such as Exchange Traded Funds, have taken up the slack. Daily trading volume as a percent of market cap has returned to pre-Lehman levels in the U.S. high-yield market, although this is not quite the case for the investment-grade market (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Less Market Making Chart II-8Corporate Bond Trading Volume That said, it is somewhat worrying that average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed. This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. Thus, it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing. The bottom line is that financial market liquidity is not as good as in the pre-Lehman years. This is not a problem at the moment, but there could be some dislocations in the fixed-income space during the next period of severe market stress when funding liquidity dries up. (3) Funding Liquidity: There are few direct measures of funding liquidity. Instead, one can look for its "footprint" or confirming evidence, such as total private sector credit. If credit is growing strongly, it is a sign that funding liquidity is ample. Box II-3 explains why international credit flows are also important to watch for signs of froth in lending. BOX II-3 The Importance Of International Credit Flows The BIS highlights that swings in international borrowing amplify domestic credit trends. Cross border lending tends to display even larger boom-bust cycles than domestic credit, as can be seen in the major advanced economies in the lead up to the GFC, as well as some Asian countries just before the Asian crisis in the late 1990s (Chart II-9). When times are good, banks and the shadow banking system draw heavily on cross-border sources of funds, such that international credit expansion tends to grow faster during boom periods than the credit granted domestically by banks located in the country. Since G4 financial systems intermediate a major share of global credit, funding conditions within the G4 affect funding conditions globally, as BIS research shows.3 This research also demonstrates that financial cycles have become more highly correlated across economies due to increased financial integration. Booms in credit inflows from abroad are also associated with a low level of the VIX, which is another sign of ample funding liquidity conditions (Chart II-10). These periods of excessive funding almost always end with a financial crisis and a spike in the VIX. Chart II-9International Credit Is Highly Cyclical Chart II-10International Credit Booms Lead Spikes In The VIX Other measures of funding liquidity to watch include: Chart II-11Market Measures Of Funding Liquidity Libor-OIS Spread (Chart II-11): This is a measure of perceived credit risk of LIBOR-panel banks. The spread tends to widen during periods of banking sector stress. Spreads are currently low by historical standards. However, libor will be phased out by 2021, such that a replacement for this benchmark rate will have to be found by then. Bond-CDS Basis (Chart II-11): The basis is roughly the average difference between each bond's yield spread to Treasurys and the cost of insuring the bond in the CDS market. Arbitrage should keep these two spreads closely aligned, but increases in funding costs tied to balance sheet constraints during periods of market stress affect this arbitrage opportunity, allowing the two spreads to diverge. The U.S. high-yield or investment grade bond markets are a good bellweather, and at the moment they indicate relatively good funding liquidity. FX Basis Swap (Chart II-11): This is analogous to the bond-CDS basis. It reflects the cost of hedging currencies, which is critically important for international investors and lending institutions. The basis swap widens when there is financial stress, reflecting a pullback in funding liquidity related to currencies. The FX swap basis widened during the GFC and, unlike other spreads, has not returned to pre-Lehman levels (see below). Bank Leverage Ratios (Chart II-12): The ratio of loans to deposits is a measure of leverage in the banking system. Banks boost leverage during boom times and thereby provide more loans and funding liquidity to buy securities. In the U.S., this ratio has plunged since 2007 and shows no sign of turning up. Primary Dealers Securities Lending (Chart II-13): This is a direct measure of funding liquidity. Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. Historically, shifts in dealer lending have been correlated with bid-ask spreads in the Treasury market. Securities lending is also correlated with the S&P 500, although it does not tend to lead the stock market. Dealer loans soared prior to 2007, before collapsing in 2008. Total loans have recovered, but have not reached pre-crisis highs, consistent with stricter regulations that forced the deleveraging of dealer balance sheets. Chart II-12U.S. Bank Leverage Chart II-13Securities Lending And Margin Debt NYSE Margin Debt (Chart II-13): Another direct measure of funding liquidity. The uptrend in recent years has been steep, although it is less impressive when expressed relative to market cap. Bank Lending Standards (Chart II-14): These surveys reflect bank lending standards for standard loans to the household or corporate sectors, but their appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is no doubt highly correlated. Lending standards tightened in 2016 due to the collapse in oil prices, but they have started to ease again this year. Table II-1 provides a handy list of liquidity indicators split into our four categories. Taking all of these indicators into consideration, we would characterize liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as the period just prior to the Lehman event. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the GFC, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. Chart II-14Bank Lending Standards Table II-1Liquidity Indicators To Watch Fed Balance Sheet Shrinkage: What Impact On Liquidity? Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart II-15 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. Chart II-16 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following last week's FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasurys and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasurys and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart II-15G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart II-16Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.4 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). In terms of the impact of balance sheet shrinkage on overall liquidity conditions, it is useful to think about the four categories of liquidity described above. (1) Monetary Liquidity The re-absorption of excess reserves will mean that base money will contract (i.e. the sum of bank reserves held at the Fed and currency in circulation). However, we do not expect this to have a noticeable impact on the broader monetary aggregates, credit growth, the economy or inflation, outside of any effect it might have on the term premium in the bond market. The reasoning is that all those excess reserves did not have a major impact on growth and inflation when they were created in the first place. This was because the credit channel of monetary policy was blocked by a lack of demand (private sector deleveraging) and limited bank lending capacity (partly due to regulation). Banks were also less inclined to lend due to rising loan losses. Removing the excess reserves should have little effect on banks' willingness or ability to make new loans. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. Asset purchases supported both the economy and risk assets in part via a weaker dollar and to the extent that the policy lifted confidence in the system. But most importantly, QE depressed long-term interest rates, which are used to discount cash flows when valuing financial assets. QE boosted risk-seeking behavior and the search for yield, partly through the signaling mechanism that convinced investors that short-term rates would stay depressed for a long time. The result was a decline in measures of market implied volatility, such as the MOVE and VIX indexes. Could Bond Yields Spike? The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. As highlighted in the Overview section, there will be a sharp swing in the flow of G4 government bonds available to the private sector, from a contraction of US$800 billion in 2017 to an increase of US$600 billion in 2018. Focusing on the U.S. market, empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasurys could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio. The BCA U.S. Bond Strategy service argues that growing bank demand for Treasurys in the coming years will absorb much of the net flow of Treasurys that the Fed is no longer buying.5 As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but the point is that forward guidance will help to limit the impact of the shrinking Fed balance sheet on bond yields. Indeed, the Fed is trying hard to sever the link in investors' minds between balance sheet policy and signaling about future rate hikes, as highlighted by Chair Yellen's Q&A session following the September FOMC meeting. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. That said, much depends on inflation. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. (2) Funding Liquidity Chart II-17Tri-Party Repo Market Has Shrunk By unwinding its balance sheet, the Fed will be supplying securities into the market and removing cash. This will be occurring at a time when transactions in the tri-party repo market have fallen to less than half of their peak in 2007 due to stricter regulation (Chart II-17). This market has historically been an important source of short-term funding, helping to meet the secular rise in demand for short-term, low-risk instruments, largely from non-financial corporations, asset managers and foreign exchange reserve funds. If the Fed drains reserves from the system and T-bill issuance does not increase substantially to compensate, a supply shortage of short-maturity instruments could develop. We can see how this might undermine the Fed's ability to shift short-term interest rates higher under its new system of interest rate management, where reverse repos and the interest rate paid on reserves set the floor for other short-term interest rates. However, at the moment we do not see the risk that fewer excess reserves on its own will negatively affect funding liquidity. Again, any impact on funding liquidity would likely be felt via a sharp rise in interest rates and pullback in the portfolio balance effect, which would occur if inflation turns up. But this has more to do with rising interest rates than the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Indeed, balance sheet shrinkage could actually improve funding liquidity provided via the bilateral repo market, securities-lending, derivatives and prime brokerage channels. These are important players in the collateral supply chain. A recent IMF working paper emphasizes that collateral flows are just as important in credit creation as money itself.6 Collateral refers to financial instruments that are used as collateral to fund positions, which can be cash or cash-like equivalents. Since pledged collateral can be reused over and over, it can generate significantly more total lending than the value of the collateral itself. The Fed's overnight reverse-repo facility includes restrictions that the collateral accessed from its balance sheet can only be used in the tri-party repo system. Thus, the Fed's presence in the collateral market has reduced the "velocity of collateral." Table II-2 shows that the reuse rate of collateral, or its velocity, has fallen from 3.0 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2015. Table II-2Collateral Velocity The combination of tighter capital regulations and Fed asset purchases has severely limited the available space on bank balance sheets to provide funding liquidity. Regulations force banks to carry more capital for a given level of assets. Fed asset purchases have forced a large portion of those assets to be held as reserves, limiting banks' activity in the bilateral repo market. There is much uncertainty surrounding this issue, but it appears that an unwind the Fed's balance sheet will free up some space on bank balance sheets, possibly permitting more bilateral repo activity and thus a higher rate of collateral velocity. It may also relieve concerns about a shortage of safe-haven assets. Nonetheless, we probably will not see a return of collateral velocity to 2007 levels because stricter capital regulations will still be in place. What About Currency Swaps? Some have argued that this removal of cash could also lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.7 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart II-18). Chart II-18FX Basis Swap And Reserves One possible chain of events is that, as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model8 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories is correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Conclusions: Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. However, we believe that the bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Ryan Swift Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy 1 D. Domanski, I. Fender and P. McGuire, "Assessing Global Liquidity," BIS Quarterly Review (December 2011). 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017," dated July 18, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 E. Cerutti, S. Claessens and L. Ratnovski, "A Primer on 'Global Liquidity'," CEPR Policy Portal (June 8, 2014). 4 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017). 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind," dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 M. Singh, "Collateral Reuse and Balance Sheet Space," IMF Working Paper (May 2017). 7 Alexandra Scaggs, "Where would you prefer your balance sheet: Banks, or the Federal Reserve?" Financial Times Alphaville (April 13, 2017). 8 S. Avdjiev, W. Du, C. Koch, and Hyun S.Shin, "The dollar, bank leverage and the deviation from covered interest parity," BIS Working Papers No.592 (Revised July 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity indexes in the U.S. and Japan broke out to new highs in September. European stocks surged as well. Investors embraced risk assets in the month on a solid earnings backdrop, strong economic indicators, continuing low inflation and revived hopes for fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and Japan, among other factors. Our indicators do not warn of any near-term stumbling blocks for the bull market. Our monetary indicator continues to hover only slightly on the restrictive side. Our equity composite technical indicator may be rolling over, but it must fall below zero to send a 'sell' signal. The speculation index is elevated, but bullish equity sentiment is only a little above the long-term mean. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 tends to increase whenever the 12-month forward EPS estimate is rising. The latter is in a solid uptrend that should continue based on the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index. Valuation remains poor, but has not yet reached our threshold of overvaluation. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in August for the second consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and Japanese WTPs are trending sideways, and Europe could be rolling over. While this is a little worrying because they indicate that flows into equity markets have moderated recently, the indicators have to clearly turn down to provide a bearish signal for stocks. Flows into the U.S. appear to be more advanced relative to Japan and the Eurozone, suggesting that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the latter two markets than for the U.S. market. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar are being worked off, but our technical indicator is still positive for the currency. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys is at neutral. Bond valuation is also at neutral based on our long-standing model. However, other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still more than 30 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst