Equities

Special Report

Dear client, I am on the road this week, attending BCA's New York Conference and teaching the BCA Academy. In lieu of a regular report, we are sending you a Special Report, a cooperation with our Global Asset Allocation service. In this piece, my colleague Xiaoli Tang tests the benefits of various currency hedging strategies for global equity portfolios. In addition to traditional hedging rules, Xiaoli deploys the Intermediate-Term Timing Models developed by the Foreign Exchange Strategy team to build dynamic hedging strategies, which result in superior risk/reward profiles. I trust you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights In this report, we analyze both static and dynamic hedging strategies to hedge an identical global equity portfolio to six home currencies: the U.S. dollar, the British pound, the euro, the Japanese yen, the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar. We propose an easy to implement dynamic hedging framework based on the proprietary currency indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy (FES) service. It has outperformed all the static hedging strategies since 2001 on a risk-adjusted return basis. In addition, it levels out the playing field for all investors as the hedged returns are quite similar, no matter what their home currencies are. Among the static hedging strategies, the "least-regret" hedge ratio of 50% has lived up to its reputation, as it has reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. Over a four-year moving performance cycle (in line with how most portfolio managers are evaluated), the proposed dynamic hedging adds little career risk to portfolio managers compared to the "least regret" 50% static hedging, while provides superior returns most of the time. A global equity portfolio's currency exposure should be managed in a centralized currency overlay under the supervision of the Chief Investment Officer, so that equity and currency managers can both fully utilize their expertise in their respective field, and the organization can manage currency risk more efficiently at the total portfolio level. Feature Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging We have received many client requests asking about currency hedging in global equity portfolios with different home currencies. This is not surprising given how currency movements have overwhelmed global equity portfolio returns of late. For example, this year the U.S. dollar's weakness against the major currencies has beefed up returns for U.S. investors who did not hedge their foreign exposure (Table I-1). Table I-1Year-To-Date Currency Movements Have Overwhelmed Equity Returns GAA's equity country allocation recommendations are by default unhedged on USD basis. When a hedge is required we make the recommendation explicit. There have been many conflicting views on whether global equity investors should hedge foreign currency exposure, and if so, what proportion of the exposure should be hedged. Perold and Schulman (1988) suggest fully hedging foreign currency exposure, because significant risk reduction can be achieved without a significant loss of return.1 This is based on their famous "free lunch" claim that average currency returns are zero over the long-term. At the other extreme, Froot (1993) suggests that foreign currencies should not be hedged at all for long-term investors, because purchasing power parity holds in the long term and exchange rates are mean reverting.2 There are many other views in between, including the universal hedge ratio proposed by Black (1989), which is estimated to be 77%.3 Campbell et al (2010) classify currencies into reserve currencies (USD, EUR and CHF), commodity currencies (AUD and CAD) and neutral currencies (JPY and GBP), and suggest that risk-minimizing investors should hold reserve currencies while hedging out commodity currencies, based on the correlations between the currencies and equity markets.4 Realizing the limitations of "static hedging," which assumes constant correlation, mean and variance, many academic researchers have explored "dynamic hedging models" that allow the mean and covariance to be time-varying by using complex econometric modelling techniques.5,6,7 These academic dynamic hedging strategies have shown improvement over the 50% static hedge, but it's very difficult for investors without a strong quantitative background to understand these very complex approaches. In fact, with all these confusing academic recommendations floating around, the "least regret" hedge ratio of 50% has been quite popular among practitioners.8 To help our clients better understand the role of currency management in global equity portfolios, we have joined forces with BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy (FES) service to de-mystify the currency hedging process, and to propose a simple framework for clients with six different home currencies to dynamically hedge their foreign currency exposure based on the FES team's proprietary Intermediate-Term Timing Model (ITTM) indicators.9 These indicators have been used in their regular weekly publications. The ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy is back-tested from 2001 because the ITTM indicators only date back to 2001 (See methodology). We have also back-tested a simple trend-following momentum-based dynamic strategy to see how a dynamic hedging methodology works in a longer period from 1976. For comparison we have back-tested ten different static hedging strategies that employ fixed hedge ratios across currencies and time. The test results not only clarify much of the confusion about static hedging, they also demonstrate that on a risk-adjusted return basis, BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy has outperformed all static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies since 2001 (Chart I-1). Even in the very long run of 41 years from August 1976, the simple momentum-based dynamic hedging outperforms the static strategies for investors with five home currencies, with only the AUD portfolio being worse off (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Identical Investment, But Different Risk/Return Profiles (3/2001-8/2017) Chart I-2Identical Investment, But Different Risk/Return Profiles (8/1976-8/2017) Now let's clarify some of the confusion: Does static hedging reduce portfolio risk at little expense of lowering returns? The answer is yes only for USD and JPY portfolios. For both the 41-year period from 1976 and the shorter 16-year period from 2001, a higher hedge ratio results in lower risk with slightly lower return. So fully hedged would be the "optimal" strategy for risk-minimizing investors with USD and JPY as home currencies (Panel 1 and 2 on left side in both Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). For the U.K. portfolio, the answer is a partial yes, because the "optimal hedge ratio" for risk-minizing investors, around 60%-80%, does produce the lowest risk, but the paths to that "optimal" point are totally opposite when different time periods are chosen. In the short period (Chart I-1, bottom left panel), it follows the same pattern as that for U.S. and Japanese investors up to the optimal point. As the hedge ratio increases, however, return drops and risk increases! In the longer period from 1976, as the hedge ratio increases, return increases and risk decreases until the "optimal point," after which risk and returns both increase (Chart I-2, bottom left panel). In the period from 2001, the AUD, CAD and EUR portfolios share a similar pattern to that of the GBP portfolio in the period from 1976. The AUD portfolio behaved the same in both the shorter period (Chart I-1, top right) and the longer period (Chart 2, top right), while the EUR and CAD portfolios behaved differently in the longer-term period from the shorter period. Overall, the CAD portfolio's "optimal" hedge ratio is around 0-30%, the AUD portfolio around 30-60% while the EUR portfolio is around 40% in the shorter period but around 90% in the longer period (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). It is also worth noting that even though both the CAD and AUD are commodity currencies, AUD investors benefit significantly from hedging, while CAD investors' risk/return profile does not change much. This is because 1) currency returns for AUD investors do not average to zero in the long term due to positive carry, and 2) correlations between foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities are not constant over time or across currencies (Appendix 2, Chart II-1 and Chart II-4) How does the "least regret" 50% static hedge do? The 50% hedge ratio fares quite well compared to the "optimal" static hedge ratio in terms of risk reduction for all portfolios in both periods, because more than half of the total risk reduction (the highest minus the lowest) occurs around the 50% hedge (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). How does BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedge do in terms of risk reduction? The ITTM produces better risk-adjusted returns for each portfolio than all the static hedges. In terms of risk, it generates the lowest risk for the EUR and GBP portfolios and is comparable to the 50% static hedge for other portfolios, while it generates a much higher return than all static hedges (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). How does the BCA Dynamic Hedge (ITTM) compare to the 50% static hedge over time? Chart I-3 shows that the dynamic hedge consistently outperformed the 50% static hedge for all six home currencies since 2001 without significantly increasing hedging transactions, compared to the fixed 50% hedge ratio for all currency pairs. The dash line in each panel of Chart I-3 corresponds to the market cap-weighted aggregate of hedge ratios of foreign currencies for each home currency. On average, they are comparable to 50%. Most portfolio managers are measured on a moving four-year performance cycle. Chart I-4 shows that the ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy has outperformed the 50% static hedging most of the time on a moving four-year basis, with only CAD, USD and JPY managers suffering brief drawdowns. Chart I-3BCA Dynamic Hedging Adds ##br##Value For All Investors Chart I-4Little Career Risk For ##br##Portfolio Managers In theory, if hedges were effective, then an identical global equity portfolio should have similar returns for all investors, no matter what home currency they hold. While neither the static hedging strategies nor the momentum-based dynamic hedging approach could pass this criteria, BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedging approach does. It levels out the playing field for all investors globally. As shown in Chart I-5, in the period from March 2001 to August 2017, if left unhedged, the same global investment exhibits very different annualized returns for investors in different home currencies, with AUD investors at the low end at around 3.2%, and GBP investors at the high end at around 7%. With BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedge, however, returns for all investors are very similar, no matter which currency is their home currency. Chart I-5BCA Dynamic Hedging Strategy Levels Out The Playing Field The BCA Dynamic Hedging Methodology To back-test all the hedging strategies, we use an identical global equity portfolio that is a market cap-weighted aggregate of nine countries/regions based on MSCI U.S., Japan, the euro area, U.K., Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. This universe accounts for about 97% of the current MSCI World index (Chart I-6). The history of the euro area before 1987 (when MSCI data were available) is calculated as a market cap-weighted aggregate of MSCI Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Chart I-6GAA Global Equity Universe We evaluate the same global portfolio for investors with six different home currencies: USD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD and AUD. The Measurement for Hedging Efficacy: All the academically claimed "optimal" hedge ratios, static or dynamic, are based on risk-minimizing in a mean-variance optimization framework. For practitioners, however, "not meeting return objectives" is a much higher risk priority than minimizing portfolio risk. This is why we advocate risk-adjusted return as our measurement for hedge efficacy. The Objective: We aim to find the hedging strategies that outperform the widely used 50% static hedging strategy on a risk-adjusted return basis. At BCA, our philosophy has always been not to strive to find the optimal solution, but to try our best to find a feasible solution that best meets the stated objective. Interestingly, this approach has produced superior results for the GBP and EUR portfolios, achieving the combination of "highest return - lowest risk." It also levels out the playing field for all investors by generating similar hedged returns for all investors, no matter what home currency they hold (Chart I-1 and Chart I-5). The Proprietary Currency Indicators: The indicators from Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Term Timing Model (ITTM) are built under the assumptions that the uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) holds, and the fair value of a currency pair is a function of the real rate differential (using an average of two-year and 10-year real rates), Junk OAS (a proxy for global risk appetite), commodity prices and past-year trends (52-week moving average). When a currency pair deviates from its fair value to an extreme, then the likelihood for a trend reversal is high.9 The Simple Rule-Based Dynamic Hedging: For each home currency, we evaluate the other eight foreign currencies individually based on each pair's ITTM indicator. When a foreign currency overshoots fair value above the upper band of its historical range, then the currency is a short, and the short position is kept until the foreign currency value touches the lower band of its historical range that's below the fair value. The Implementation: We use one-month forward contracts and re-balance on a monthly basis. The gain or loss of the underlying equity index during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. For history before 2001, we use one-month interest rates to calculate hedged returns (Please see Appendix 1 hedged return calculations using forwards and also interest rates). Example: Chart I-7 illustrates how a Canadian investor uses the ITTM indicator to decide when to hedge JPY exposure when they invest in the MSCI Japan equity index. Chart I-7Canadian Investor: Japanese Index Dynamically Hedged The top panel shows the hedging signal for JPY (solid line) versus our proprietary ITTM indicator for JPY/CAD exchange rate (dash line). The upper and lower band are set as 7% above fair value and 9% below fair value; the bottom panel shows the relative performance of the MSCI Japan hedged in CAD versus the MSCI Japan unhedged in CAD. Currently CAD investors should hedge their JPY exposure based on the ITTM indicator. Some Suggestions For Asset Allocators Use a centralized currency overlay portfolio to manage foreign currency exposure. The overlay portfolio should be managed by currency specialists (either in-house or using external managers) under the supervision of the CIO. The objective of the overlay portfolio is to manage currency exposure based on the underlying assets of the organization's Total Portfolio, such that the risk/return profile of the total portfolio is improved against its benchmark. Global equity portfolio manager performance should be measured on an unhedged basis in their respective home currency. Some have argued that a fully hedged benchmark such as the MSCI All Country Total Return Index in local currencies should be used to measure the performance of a global equity portfolio manager. We strongly disagree, even though in theory it does not really matter what benchmark is used. MSCI's "total return indexes in local currencies" for global equity aggregates are theoretical in nature. They cannot be replicated in the real world because they are calculated on a daily basis using the previous closing day's exchange rate to calculate foreign equity return10 - such that the "local return" for each foreign equity index is perfectly hedged. Unfortunately this "perfect hedge" is humanly impossible, because as shown in Formula (1) in Appendix 1, only when both the spot rate and forward rate at the time t are equal to the spot rate at time t+1, can the local returns be fully captured! Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards", Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 2 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons", NBER working paper 4355 3 Black, F., 1989, "Universal hedging: optimizing currency risk and reward in international equity portfolios", Financial Analyst Journal 45, 16-22 4 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global currency hedging", Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122 5 Gagnon, L., T., McCurdy, and G., Lypny, 1998, " Hedging foreign currency portfolios", Journal of Empirical Finance 5, 197-220 6 Hautsch, N., and J. Inkmann, 2003, "Optimal hedging of the currency exchange risk exposure of dynamically balanced strategic asset allocations", Journal of Asset Management 4, 173-189 7 Brown, C., J., Dark, and W., Zhang, "Dynamic currency hedging for international stock portfolios", 2012, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourn 8 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying regret theory to investment choices: Currency hedging decisions", Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694 9 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "In Search Of A Timing Model", June 22, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 10 "Note on index calculation in local currency", MSCI Bara Index Calculation Methodologies, p19, May 2010 11 MSCI uses 2 business days as described in "MSCI Index Methodology: MSCI Hedged Indexes", July 2013 Appendix 1 We use one-month forward contracts and re-balance on a monthly basis. The gain or loss of the underlying equity index during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. Before reliable forward contract rates were available (Jan 2001), we use one-month interest rates instead to calculate hedged returns. Please note that for simplification we have ignored the bid-ask spread in all the quotations, and we do not take into account the time lag required to implement a hedge.11 In practice, however, these are valid considerations. Appendix 2: Dynamics Hedging For Six Home Currencies 2.1 The Australian Perspective Correlations: For Aussie investors, foreign currencies in aggregate have a negative correlation with the domestic equity index (especially in the period from 2001), and a mostly positive but low correlation to the unhedged foreign equities. (Chart II-1). So hedging away foreign currency exposure would increase total risk of the global portfolio. This is why a fully hedged portfolio has the highest risk (Chart II-2, Table II-1). Historical Performance: Since 2001, ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in AUD. The return profile looks similar to the fully hedged portfolio, but risk is much lower (Table II-1). Over the longer period, the optimal static hedge ratio is about 70%, which is actually quite close to the 50% hedge, as shown in Table II-2. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-2, the ITTM-based dynamic risk/return profile also prevails. Current State: Currently AUD investors should only be hedging their exposure in Swiss francs and U.S. dollars, the two "safe haven" currencies. Actually, our indicators show a close to 100% hedge of the Swiss franc, as shown in Chart II-3, which did hurt the risk/return profile during the GFC period despite an outstanding full-period performance. Table II-1Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In AUD (2001-2017) Table II-2Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In AUD (1976-2017) Chart II-1Australian Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-2Australian Perespective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-3Australian Perspective: Swiss Index Dynamically Hedged 2.2 The Canadian Perspective Correlations: For Canadian investors, foreign currencies on aggregate have a negative correlation with the country's domestic equity index, but the correlation with unhedged foreign equities has oscillated in both positive and negative territory. The correlation between Canadian equities and unhedged foreign equities has been always positive, in the range of 0.4-0.8 (Chart II-4). So hedging away foreign currency exposure will increase total risk within a global portfolio. This is why a fully hedged portfolio has the highest risk (Chart II-5, Table II-3 and Table II-4). Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest annualized return for the global portfolio in CAD without significantly increasing volatility from the unhedged scenario. In terms of risk-adjusted return, dynamic hedging has outperformed the best static hedging scenario (40% hedged) by about 46% (Table II-3). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-5, the dynamic risk/return profile also prevails. Current State: Currently Canadian investors should be hedging all foreign currencies except for the Australian dollar. Chart II-6 shows how CAD investors dynamically hedge their exposure to the Swedish krona. Table II-3Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In CAD (2001-2017) Table II-4Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In CAD (1976-2017) Chart II-4Canadian Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-5Canadian Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-6Canadian Perspective: Swedish Index Dynamically Hedged 2.3 The Japanese Perspective Correlations: For Japanese investors, correlations among foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities seem to have gone through regime changes since the GFC, as shown in Chart II-7. These regime changes in correlations explain the evolving risk/return profile of the static hedges in Chart II-8. Before the GFC, full hedge and 50% hedge had similar risk profiles, but after the GFC full hedge reduced total risk significantly due to the sharp increase in correlations. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in JPY, with a much higher return and slightly higher risk (Table II-5). Fully hedged has the lowest risk in both periods, and 50% is close to the "optimal" static hedge in both periods as well (Table II-5 and II-6). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-8, the ITTM-based dynamic risk/return profile. The 50% static hedge has similar risk profile to the ITTM-based dynamic hedge, but with lower returns. Current State: Currently JPY investors should be only hedging their exposure in Swiss francs and U.S. dollars. Chart II-9 shows how Japanese investors should have hedged CAD exposure. Table II-5Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (2001-2017) Table II-6Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (1976-2017) Chart II-7Japanese Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-8Japanese Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-9Japanese Perspective: Canadian Index Dynamically Hedged 2.4 The U.S. Perspective Correlations: For U.S. investors, correlations among foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities seem to have gone through regime changes since the GFC, as shown in Chart II-10. These regime changes in correlation explain the evolving risk/return profile of the static hedges in Chart II-11. Before the GFC, full hedge and 50% hedge had similar risk profiles, but after the GFC full hedge exhibited significantly reduced total risk due to the sharp increase in correlations. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in USD, with a much higher return and slightly lower risk compared to the 50%, which is the best static hedge for the period (Table II-7). Fully hedged had the lowest risk in both periods, but the return profiles of the static hedges were very similar, supporting the widely held belief that in the long run currency returns are close to zero (Table II-7 and II-8). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-11, the dynamic risk/return profile is close to that of the 50%. Current State: Currently U.S. investors should only be hedging their exposure in euros (Chart II-12). Table II-7Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In USD (2001-2017) Table II-8Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (1976-2017) Chart II-10U.S. Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-11U.S. Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-12U.S. Perspective: EMU Index Dynamically Hedged 2.5 The Euro Perspective Correlations: For investors that call the euro home currency, the correlation and foreign equities has been positive. The correlation between foreign currencies and domestic equity index, however, has been changing signs over time, currently sitting at near zero! (Chart II-13). This explains the shape of the risk/return profile in Chart II-14 and Table II-9. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in euros, which has a higher return and lower risk than the best static hedge of 80% (Table II-9). Over the longer period, the optimal hedge ratio is about 50% hedge, which is actually quite close to those between 40-70%, as shown in Table II-10. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-14, the dynamic risk/return profile definitely prevails. Current State: Currently euro investors should not be hedging any foreign exposure, based on our indicators. Chart II-15 shows how euro investors should have hedged JPY exposure over time since 2001. Table II-9Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In Euro (2001-2017) Table II-10Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In Euro (1976-2017) Chart II-13Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-14Euro Area Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-15Euro area Perspective: Japanese Index Dynamically Hedged 2.6 The British Perspective Correlations: For British investors, correlations between foreign currencies and domestic equities have gone through several regime changes over time in both positive and negative territory, as shown in Chart II-16. The positive correlation between foreign and domestic equities has also increased over time. This would definitely make static hedging worse off (Table II-11 and II-12). Historical Performance: Not surprisingly, since 2001, dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in pounds, which has a higher return and lower risk than the best static hedge of 20% (Table II-11). Over the longer period, the optimal hedge ratio is about 90% hedge, Table II-12. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-17, the dynamic risk/return profile prevails, as it shares similar risk as the 50% hedge but with a higher return. Current State: Currently the British investors should not be hedging CAD and Swedish krona, while all six other currencies should be hedged. Chart II-18 shows how U.K. investors should have hedged their AUD exposure over time since 2001. Table II-11Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In GBP (2001-2017) Table II-12Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In GBP (1976-2017) Chart II-16Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-17Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-18U.K. Perspective: Australian Index Dynamically Hedged Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Dear Client, I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's Annual New York conference on Monday, where I offered the following trade recommendations. This week's report is a summary of my remarks. Please note we will be publishing our Q4 Strategy Outlook and monthly tactical asset allocation recommendation table next Wednesday. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Go short the December 2018 fed funds futures contract. Go long global industrial stocks versus utilities. Go short 20-year JGBs relative to their 5-year counterparts. Feature Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract The hurricanes are likely to dent activity in the third quarter, but leading economic indicators are pointing to faster growth starting in Q4. This can be seen in a variety of measures, including the Conference Board's LEI (Chart 1). U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply this year, thanks to a decline in government bond yields, narrower credit spreads, a weaker dollar, and rising equity prices. Changes in our FCI lead growth by about 6-to-9 months. If history is any guide, U.S. growth will rise to about 3% in the first half of 2018 (Chart 2). Growth could even temporarily rise above that level if Congress enacts significant unfunded tax cuts, as we expect it will. Chart 1U.S. Leading Economic Indicator Pointing Higher Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost U.S. Growth Contrary to popular belief, the Phillips curve is far from dead. It has just been dormant for the better part of 30 years because the unemployment rate has hovered along the flat side of the curve. The closest the economy came to overheating was in the late 1990s, but any inflationary pressures back then were choked off by turmoil in emerging markets, a surging dollar, and collapsing commodity prices.1 If U.S. growth accelerates over the next few quarters, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.5% by the end of next year - well below the Fed's end-2018 projection of 4.1%, and even below the low of 3.8% reached in 2000. At that point, the U.S. economy will find itself on the steep side of the Phillips curve (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Economy Has Moved Into The 'Steep' Side Of The Phillips Curve As Chart 4 illustrates, our wage survey indicator - a propriety measures that combines the results of 13 separate employer surveys - is pointing to faster wage growth. Rising wages should boost consumer spending. With the output gap all but extinguished, faster demand growth will lead to higher inflation. This is already being telegraphed by the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 5). Chart 4Survey Data Point To Higher Wage Growth Ahead Chart 5Strong ISM Signaling A Rise In Inflation If inflation accelerates, there is little reason why the Fed would not continue raising rates in line with the dots, which call for one more hike in December and three hikes in 2018. That's 100 basis points of hikes between now and the end of next year, considerably more than the 40 bps that the market is currently discounting. We went short the December 2018 fed funds futures contract three weeks ago. The trade has gained 20 basis points so far, but my discussion this morning suggests that it has plenty of juice left. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities Economists are a bit like stock market analysts - they are generally too optimistic. As a result, they usually end up having to revise their growth estimates down over time. That has not been the case this year: Global growth estimates have been marching higher (Chart 6). Capital spending tends to accelerate in the mature phase of business-cycle expansions, as a growing number of firms realize that they have insufficient capacity to meet rising demand. We are starting to see that now. A variety of indicators - including capital goods orders and capex intention surveys - are pointing to further gains in business spending. This is captured in our model estimates, which project that global capex will grow at the fastest pace in six years (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Growth Estimates Accelerating Despite Stalled U.S. Growth Chart 7Global Capex On The Upswing A burst of capital spending should benefit global industrial stocks. Conversely, rising global yields will hurt rate-sensitive utilities (Chart 8). Industrials are no longer cheap, but relative to utilities, valuations do not seem especially stretched, implying further room for re-rating (Chart 9). Chart 8Higher Bond Yields Will Hurt Utilities Chart 9Relative Valuations Are Not Stretched Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts The deflationary mindset remains firmly entrenched in Japan. CPI swaps are pricing in inflation of only 0.5% over the next twenty years (Chart 10). Not only do investors expect the Bank of Japan to continue to miss its 2% target, they don't even think that inflation will rise from today's miserly levels. They could be in for a big surprise. Many of the structural drivers of deflation in Japan are fading. Land prices have stopped falling for the first time in 25 years, and bank balance sheets are in good shape (Chart 11). Goods prices are also rising again, thanks in part to a cheaper yen (Chart 12). Profit margins have soared, giving firms the wherewithal to pay their workers more. Chart 10Deflationary Mindset Remains Deeply Entrenched... Chart 11A...But Deflationary Pressures Are Abating Chart 11B Chart 12ACorporate Pricing Power Has Improved Chart 12B Companies have been reluctant to raise wages, but that may be starting to change. Our wage trend indicator is showing signs of life (Chart 13). As in the U.S., the Phillips curve in Japan tends to become kinked at very low levels of unemployment. Japan's unemployment rate now stands at 2.8%, almost a full percentage point below 2007 levels. As the labor market heats up, companies will have to compete more intensively for a shrinking pool of available workers. This could spark a tit-for-tat cycle where wage hikes by one company lead to hikes by others. Chart 13ATentative Signs of Wage Growth Chart 13B Chart 14Demographic Inflection Point? The government has been hoping for such a bidding war to break out. It will get its wish. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared, and is now even higher than at the peak of the bubble in 1990 (Chart 14). Amazingly, Japan's labor market has tightened over the past few years despite tepid GDP growth and a steady influx of women into the labor force. However, now that female participation in Japan exceeds U.S. levels, this tailwind to labor supply will dissipate. Meanwhile, the retirement of aging Japanese baby boomers will accelerate. The largest number of births in Japan occurred between 1947 and 1949. These workers will reach 70 over the next two years, the age at which most Japanese retire. How should investors play this theme? Considering that inflation is still far from the Bank of Japan's 2% target, it is doubtful that the BoJ will abandon its yield curve targeting regime any time soon. But as inflation expectations begin to rise, ultra long-term yields - which are not subject to the BOJ's cap - will increase. This suggests that shorting 20-year JGBs relative to their 5-year counterparts will pay off in spades. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The sharp rally in Chinese developer stocks this year reflects a combination of the unwinding of "doomsday" bets and notable improvement in fundamentals rather than a bubble formation. The positive re-rating has further to run. Tighter policy 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. Urbanization still provides a powerful tailwind for residential construction from a long-term perspective. Chinese housing market will continue to experience cyclical swings, but the powerful structural tailwind will make the cyclical downturn shallow and fleeting. Feature Chart 1A Sharp Re-Rating Of Developer Stocks Chinese real estate developer stocks have more than doubled so far this year, making them the best performing sector in the investable universe - easily outpacing even the world-beating Chinese technology sector (Chart 1). The recent moves in developer stock prices have become parabolic, which combined with recent measures by some major cities to further tighten housing transactions raises the odds of profit-taking and a technical correction in the near term. However, the sharp rally since the beginning of the year has largely been a mean-reverting positive re-rating process rather than an overshoot. Moreover, the latest housing tightening measures are unlikely to have a long-lasting impact on housing demand. Therefore developer stocks should continue to advance after a period of consolidation. Beyond the cyclical horizon, residential development will remain a long-term growth driver for Chinese business activity. Positive Re-Rating Has Further To Run Chart 2Improvement In Developers' Fundamentals It is tempting to dismiss this year's sharp rally in developer stocks as a speculative frenzy, as the dramatic boom in stock price has been accompanied by cooling property sales and moderating home prices amid regulatory tightening in various cities. In our view, the sharp rally in property stocks has been a powerful positive re-rating in multiples after being deeply depressed for several consecutive years. The bottom panel of Chart 1 shows strong multiples expansion of developer stocks since the beginning of 2017. The message here is that China's cyclical improvement in the past two years has led to an aggressive repricing of Chinese equities, particularly in some of the hardest hit sectors. Investors' overwhelming bearishness towards China's macro situation in previous years took a heavy toll on Chinese investable stocks. The market had essentially priced in a chaotic hard-landing scenario, which is now being reversed due to growth improvement. In recent years we have consistently argued that the risk premium embedded in Chinese equities was exceptionally high and ultimately unsustainable, and one of our major investment themes has been a "positive re-rating in Chinese equities" - a view that has been quickly validated. Moreover, developers' stock prices have also reflected some notable improvements in earnings and balance sheet fundamentals, which can also be observed among their domestically listed peers (Chart 2): Deleveraging: The median liabilities-to-assets ratio of developers has dropped notably from the peak of 2015. Destocking: Developers have been focusing on selling inventories, and have been cautious on new projects. The median inventory-to-assets ratio has dropped from a peak of 63% in late 2015 to below 50% currently. Stronger cash positions: Aggressive de-stocking and conservative expansion have also significantly improved developers' cash flows. Cash position as a share of total assets has improved significantly, returning to the all-time highs reached in 2010. Total profits have also recovered strongly with strengthening margins.1 In short, the rally in developer stocks reflects a combination of the unwinding of "doomsday" bets and notable improvement in fundamentals rather than a bubble formation. There is little froth in the marketplace just yet. In fact, property stocks still remain quite cheap based on some conventional valuation indicators - even after this year's sharp rally. Property stocks are trading at 13 times trailing earnings and nine times forward earnings, and are still trading at hefty discounts to bottom-up net-asset-value (NAV) estimates. This means the bull market should have more legs in the coming months. Will Policy Constraints Lead To Another Major Downturn? Recent policy tightening on the residential market clearly creates some headwinds for the sector, and policy risk has been a key factor driving developer stock prices in previous tightening cycles. Historically, the government's tightening campaigns have typically restricted land supplies and bank credit to developers, and have been combined with tighter lending standards and higher interest rates for mortgage borrowers - and even outright bans on household investment demand for residential properties in major cities. In the current tightening cycle that began early last year, regulations on developers have remained largely unchanged, while the rein on households has been much tighter. Mortgage interest rates have also begun to inch higher (Chart 3). In the latest round of tightening measures announced late last week, eight major cities tightened controls on home sales, with a ban on reselling of homes within two to five years of purchase. The government's tightening measures have already led to a moderation in both home sales and prices, as shown in Chart 3, and the impact needs to be closely monitored. For now, our view is that policy constraints will not lead to major negative surprises both for developer stock prices and overall construction activity. On the demand side, household residential demand has been exceptionally strong of late. The central bank's most recent survey showed that a record high percentage of households intend to buy a home in the near future, a dramatic turnaround since the beginning of 2016 (Chart 4). The reason for the surge in home-buying intentions is not clear - we suspect it is the combination of pent-up demand accumulated in previous years and the herd-following mentality that typically follows a period of rapid increase in home prices. On the supply side, developers' inventory de-stocking and stronger cash positions have improved their ability to deal with sales slowdowns. In fact, home sales have significantly outpaced housing completions since 2015, leading to a sharp decline in inventories. Even including floor space under construction, the sellable inventories-to-sales ratio has dropped to its lowest level since 2010 (Chart 5). In our view, the sharp decline in inventories has been a key reason for the rampant increase in home prices since early last year. Chart 3Housing Market Has Been Moderating Chart 4Booming Demand For Home Purchases Taken together, with no inventory overhang and strong demand, we expect the impact of the current episode of housing tightening to be limited. In fact, real estate investment has been pretty subdued in recent years, despite surging home sales and improvement in business confidence among developers (Chart 6). Previous housing tightening measures were often implemented after a prolonged period of construction boom, leading to a sudden halt in investment and construction activity. This time around, tighter policy will probably keep developers in dormancy, but a major downturn is highly unlikely simply because there is not much excess to begin with. Chart 5Housing Destocking Becomes Advanced Chart 6Real Estate Investment Will Unlikely Slump Anew It's The Supply Side, Stupid! It appears that Chinese policymakers as well as global investors have perpetual fears of a "housing bubble" in China. The authorities are deeply worried about potential housing excesses and the negative impact on macro stability. Investors share similar concerns, and chronically worry about the global repercussions of a Chinese housing bust. Some have taken aggressive bets against Chinese developers and other asset classes that are leveraged on Chinese construction activity. While there are some idiosyncrasies in the motives of every tightening cycle in recent years, there is one common theme: the authorities' repeated attempts to cool off the housing sector are deeply rooted in the belief that both residential supplies and home prices were excessive, and therefore tighter controls on both supply and demand were warranted. Remarkably, concerns about housing excesses began to emerge almost immediately after the residential sector was privatized and a housing "market" began to develop in the early 2000s. In a special report dated April 29th 2004 titled, "What Housing Bubble?",2 I disputed for the first time the then-prevailing view on Chinese housing excesses. Fast forwarded 13 years and China's urban landscape has changed profoundly - yet the arguments for a "housing bubble" have remained essentially unchanged: speculative demand, excess supply, parabolic price increases and extreme unaffordability. To some China watchers, the housing sector's remarkable resilience despite repeated policy attacks from the early 2000s was simply an accumulation of a bigger accident waiting to eventually happen. In our analysis in recent years, we have repeatedly emphasized that the supply side shortages have been a key reason for the massive increase in Chinese home prices. While the government's various tightening measures to restrict speculators and cool off demand are well warranted, harsh supply side restrictions during various tightening campaigns have proven counterproductive, as they have amplified supply shortages, creating even more upward pressure on prices. Indeed, the supply-side restrictions are fairly easy to observe. China's leadership is fundamentally concerned about self-sufficiency of agricultural products, and therefore is reluctant to sacrifice farmland for urban development. Moreover, land supplies zoned for residential construction have accounted for an increasingly smaller share of total land supply, due to competition from infrastructure, industrial and commercial projects (Chart 7). Similarly, land purchased by developers plateaued in the early 2000s, and has dropped substantially in recent years. As a highly levered business by nature, developers have also been constantly challenged by limited access to bank loans due to regulatory restrictions. Loans to developers account for about 7% of banks' total loan book, largely unchanged in the past decade despite the massive construction boom. Tight credit controls have forced developers to other "shadow" financing options, which are both costlier and less reliable than formal bank loans, further limiting their ability to bring new housing projects to market. The prevailing heightened concerns on residential excesses and tougher regulations have pushed real estate companies to increasingly shift to commercial and industrial property development. Residential accounted for almost 80% of total real estate development in the early 2000s; the share has dropped to below 70% in recent years (Chart 8). Finally, the government's ill-informed judgement on the degree of excessive supply and speculative demand in the residential sector also prevented them from formulating a multi-tier residential market. Rental residential properties owned by professional institutional investors are rare, and "renters" often suffer discrimination for some public services, making homeownership essentially the only way for new families to establish themselves in urban areas. Chart 7Residential Land Supply Has Been Shrinking Chart 8Residential Construction's Dwindling Importance From a big-picture point of view, China is still in the midst of a spectacular urbanization process. Residential development is not only part of the growth process, but also an essential component to accommodating the massive increase in the urban population. Mainstream media often hype about "ghost towns" but ignore the fact that millions of young migrant workers still reside in dorm rooms provided by employers in sub-standard living conditions. Adjusting for the increase in the urban population, China's new residential construction in recent years has been a lot smaller than in other countries such as Japan and Korea at the prime stage of their respective urbanization process, according to our calculations (Chart 9) - likely the critical reason why Chinese home prices have remained stubbornly high, despite numerous rounds of government crackdowns. Chart 9China's Construction Boom In Perspective Since last year it appears the Chinese authorities have been paying more attention to increasing residential housing supply by providing more funding for social housing projects and shanty town reconstruction, as well as increasing land supply for residential projects. Meanwhile, there are recent proposals to develop rental markets in some major cities, allowing developers to build solely for rental, rather than for sales. In our view, policies boosting residential supplies will be a lot more effective in improving housing affordability for urban citizens. All in all, after the massive boom in recent years, home prices in certain major cities certainly feel a lot more "bubbly" than any time before, and it is easy to make a bearish structural case, as many have been doing over the past decade. However, urbanization still provides a powerful tailwind for residential construction from a long-term perspective. The Chinese housing market will continue to experience cyclical swings, but powerful structural tailwinds will make the cyclical downturn shallow and fleeting, as repeatedly demonstrated in previous policy tightening cycles. Looking forward, construction will remain an important growth driver for China for decades to come. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Earnings Scorecard And Market Tea Leaves", dated September 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "What Housing Bubble?" dated April 29, 2004, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Bank Credit Analyst

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

Highlights The Fed will shrink its balance and is determined to raise rates. Implications of synchronized global growth and global NAIRU. Consumers are upbeat and ready to spend. What's the signal from record high consumer expectations for equities? Feature Risk assets and Treasury yields rose up to and after last week's Fed meeting, but late-week saber-rattling by North Korea left most asset classes little changed on the week. The U.S. economic data released last week continued to be impacted by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but the Fed notes that the storms are "unlikely to materially alter the course of the national economy beyond the next few months". The backdrop has turned more bearish for bonds even before the Fed's recommitment last week to raising rates gradually and shrinking its balance sheet. The Fed's hawkish stance short term and dovish stance long term will allow risk assets to outperform Treasury bonds and cash, but a sudden move higher in inflation would challenge that view. FOMC: Short Term Hawkish... The Fed sent a hawkish short-term signal on the outlook for monetary policy at its meeting last week. The vast majority of FOMC members, 12 out of 16, expect to raise rates again by December (Chart 1). A 0.2% downward revision to the Fed's 2017 core PCE inflation forecast was offset by an equal 0.2% upward revision to its GDP growth forecast. Moreover, Fed Chair Janet Yellen downplayed this year's soft inflation figures and stressed that inflation expectations remain "reasonably well anchored". Although the relationship may have weakened somewhat recently, the Fed is loath to throw the Phillips curve model into the dust bin just yet. The unemployment rate forecasts were lowered from 4.2% to 4.1% for 2018 and 2019, while the Fed kept its NAIRU estimate at 4.6%. The tightening labor market is expected to place upward pressure on wage inflation and push PCE inflation to the 2% target by 2019. Chart 1Market Expects A Hike In December Incoming data on actual inflation and inflation expectations will determine whether the Fed will be able to pull the trigger in December. Further softness in the core PCE inflation and CPI will raise doubts as to whether the inflation undershoot is indeed transitory. And especially worrisome will be a decline in inflation expectations. It is noteworthy that 10-year inflation breakevens fell nearly 4bps immediately following yesterday's FOMC announcement. At 1.85%, 10-year breakevens are already running below the 2.4-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for PCE inflation. Any further decline in breakevens will call into question the Fed's view that inflation expectations remain well anchored. Further, with the decline in inflation expectations, the 2/10-year yield curve flattened following the Fed's announcement. This is could be considered a sign of a slight lowering in growth expectations. Finally, there was little surprise on the Fed's balance sheet announcement. For now, the Fed is committed to slowly unwinding its bond holdings. Janet Yellen said that the Fed will only resume full reinvestment of maturing bonds after it had cut the policy rate back to the zero bound. In other words, the Fed funds rate is now the primary tool to set monetary policy. The odds of another Fed rate hike by year-end have certainly increased (Chart 1). This need not upset risk assets if the incoming data justify higher rates. Only a policy error, where the Fed hikes rates even as inflation expectations decline and the yield curve flattens, will trigger a sizeable pullback in risk assets. This is not our baseline scenario. Softness in inflation and inflation expectations will force the Fed to back down. ...But Long Term Dovish Although the Fed signaled a greater probability of an interest rate hike in the near-term, it lowered the long-run outlook for policy rates. First, the median FOMC member now expects only two rate increases in 2019, down from three in the June forecast (not shown). Second, the estimate for the terminal rate was lowered to 2.75% from 3.0% (Chart 2, panel 4). With the long-run inflation target being 2% (Chart 2, panel 3), this means that the FOMC collectively believes the long-term neutral real Fed funds rate to be just 0.75%. Currently, the Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral real Fed funds rate is near zero (Chart 3). Therefore, the FOMC sees it rising only modestly from current levels over the coming years. Chart 2The FOMC's "Long Run" Forecasts Since 2012 Chart 3Neutral Real Rate Near Zero For any given term premium, a lower short-term interest rate path will mean a lower 10-year yield. If estimates for the terminal policy rate outside the U.S. remain unchanged, the Fed's lower projection will mean narrower interest rate differentials, reducing the relative attractiveness of the dollar. As for equities, a lower estimate for the long-run policy rate would be a wash if it also reflected a lower estimate for long-term GDP growth. However, the Fed kept its longer run real GDP growth estimate unchanged at 1.8% (Chart 2, panel 1). If that proves accurate, lower interest rates and a weaker dollar will be more supportive for U.S. equities over the long-term. Notably, the Fed did not adjust its view of NAIRU, keeping it at 4.6%, where it has been since April (Chart 2, panel 2). Bottom Line: In terms of investment implications, the lower estimate of the long-run neutral rate is supportive for 10-year Treasuries, negative for the dollar and positive for equities. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds and short duration. Don't Downplay NAIRU Synchronous global growth remains in place in 2017 and will persist into 2018, but this growth alone may not be enough to push up inflation. BCA's OECD Real GDP Diffusion Index is at 100% after it dipped to 14% during the financial crisis. The index was also above 90% from 1994 through 1998, and then again from 2001 through 2007. Moreover, the OECD expects that GDP growth will climb above zero in all the member countries in BCA's diffusion index again in 2018. The broad-based global GDP growth has historically been associated with a rising stock-to-bond ratio, rising global trade flows, a narrowing output gap and accelerating industrial production (Chart 4). However, there is no consistent pattern on the dollar, the unemployment rate, or core inflation. Chart 5 shows that during prior periods of robust global growth, equities beat bonds, the U.S. output gap tightened and industrial production increased. U.S. exports tend to contribute more to GDP growth during these phases, but not in a uniform way. Meantime, the Fed has both raised and lowered rates during these periods. Chart 4Widespread##BR##Global Growth... Chart 5... Supports Risk Assets,##BR##Trade And A Narrower Output Gap Nonetheless, while the dollar jumped in the 1990s when BCA's OECD growth index was above 90%, it fell from 2001 to 2007, and it's performance since 2015 has been mixed. The unemployment rate declined in the mid-to-late 1990s, but initially rose in the 2001-2007 period and has dropped since 2010. The Fed both raised and lowered rates during the previous episodes, but has only boosted rates in the current phase. Core inflation slowed in the 1990s when 90% of countries saw positive GDP growth, but accelerated in the early 2000s. Since 2015, core inflation has both climbed and decelerated. What will trigger higher inflation if more than 90% of the globe is experiencing positive economic growth? BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service notes that1 67% of OECD nations have unemployment rates under the organization's assessment of "global NAIRU", a level not seen since before the Great Recession when inflation expanded in both the goods and service sectors (Chart 6). However, the link between inflation and NAIRU waned during and just after the 2007-2009 recession and only reconnected lately. The implication for investors is that there is a global NAIRU level (or global output gap), which is more important in determining worldwide inflation rates than individual country NAIRU measures. Chart 6The NAIRU Concept Is Not Dead Yet Bottom Line: Surging global growth is a precondition for higher inflation, but sustained improvement in the labor market is needed to drive up inflation and prompt more action from the Fed. Investors may be downplaying the NAIRU concept at a time when it is finally set to bite. If that is the case, inflation expectations around the world are too low, although it will take some evidence of faster realized inflation (especially in the U.S. and Europe) before the markets begin to discount that view in bond yields. Stay underweight duration. Flow Of Funds Update On Consumer And Corporate Health The latest readings on the health of household and corporate balance sheets from the Fed's flow of funds accounts reinforce BCA's stance that consumer spending will provide strong support for the U.S. economy through 2017 and 2018. Household net worth continues to rise and is well above average at this point in a long expansion (Chart 7). The total wealth effect for consumer spending is still lagging prior cycles, but remains supportive. Debt-to-income ratios are at multi-decade lows. The ongoing repair of consumer balance sheets has led to an all-time high in FICO scores (Chart 7, panel 4). Last week's U.S. flow of funds report also allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) (Chart 8). The level of the CHM improved slightly between Q1 and Q2, but the overall level still suggests corporate balance sheets are deteriorating. The progress in Q2 was broadbased, as all the components improved, notably the net leverage component. Profit growth surged while debt moved up modestly in Q2, modestly reducing leverage. The Monitor has been a reliable indicator of the trend in corporate bond spreads. The upswing in the CHM in Q2 - and particularly the dip in leverage - supports our corporate bond overweight. On the consumer front, while the recent weakness in vehicle sales and overall retail sales are noteworthy, they do not signal the end of the business cycle. We found2 that a peak in vehicle sales leads the end of the economic cycle by two years. Moreover, Hurricane Harvey weighed on August's retail sales report and Irma will have the same impact on September's sales.3 Instead, the backdrop for consumer spending remains strong. For example, the most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer's Survey suggests that the banking sector is willing to lend to households and that consumers are open to borrowing, although household demand for loans has weakened in recent quarters (Chart 9). Chart 7Support For The Consumer##BR##Remains In Place Chart 8Improved A Bit In Q2##BR##But Still Deteriorating Chart 9Senior Loan Officers##BR##Survey Still Supportive In addition, consumer spending intentions remain in an uptrend and the decade-high readings on "plans to buy" a house and a car are telling (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2). Overall measures of consumer confidence remain at 16-year peaks (Chart 10, panel 3). Furthermore, the sturdy labor market, modest wage growth and low inflation are all factors that support a solid pace of real income growth, which reinforces the spending backdrop (Chart 10, panel 4). Student loan debt increased again in Q2 and investors are concerned by the risks posed by the upswing. The Bank Credit Analyst covered the topic in a comprehensive report in November 2016.4 The key message was that student debt is a modest drag on economic growth, but is not a threat to U.S. government finances and does not represent the next subprime crisis. Nearly a year later, BCA's conclusions remain unchanged. A recent report5 by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York provides data on student loans through Q2 2017. The report noted that while student debt levels were little changed between Q1 and Q2 2017, they are up $85B from a year ago and at record highs (Chart 11). Although student loan delinquencies ticked higher in Q2, and remain elevated by historical standards, they have moved sideways in recent years. We will continue to monitor all types of consumer indebtedness as we assess hazards in the U.S. economy. Student loans are only a mild economic headwind and do not represent a source of systemic financial risk. Chart 10Consumers Upbeat And Ready To Spend Chart 11Student Loan Debt Is Elevated Bottom Line: The consumer - a key driver of the U.S. economy and corporate earnings - will provide a solid backdrop for the economy through 2017 and beyond. This climate will allow the Fed to boost rates one more time this year and begin paring its balance sheet starting next month. The solid underpinnings for the consumer will sustain corporate earnings growth and, ultimately, higher stock prices. However, favorable consumer attitudes toward U.S. equity prices are a mild concern. Signals From Stock Sentiment Surveys Record U.S. consumer optimism - as measured by the University of Michigan (UM) - on forward stock returns does not necessarily signal a market top. On the other hand, it supports BCA's view that investors be prudent with risk allocations. Respondents to the UM Survey of Consumers assign a 65% probability that the U.S. stock market will move higher in the next 12 months, surpassing the previous zenith in mid-2004. Interestingly, before the 2014 high (60%), the top reading was in mid-2007 (62%), only three months prior to the October 2007 equity market peak. A cursory look at Chart 12, panel 1 shows that peaks on this metric line up with those in equities. We view it another way. Investors should not assume that stocks are peaking based on the UM data. The bottom panel of Chart 12 shows that at just 5.6%, the annual change in the percentage of respondents who expect stocks to move higher in the next 12 months is not at an extreme. The 12-month change was as high as 18% in early 2004 and again in March 2010. Stock returns in the 12 months after these peaks in sentiment were lower than in the 12 months prior. However, we are not yet in the danger zone based on this indicator. Furthermore, BCA's Investor Sentiment Composite Index (not shown) is not at an extreme, although it is at the top end of its bull market range. We expect the stock-to-bond ratio to move higher in the next 6-to-12 months, despite the elevated readings on households' expected return on stocks. Our position is driven more by our bearish stance on Treasury bond prices than on an overly bullish call on equity returns. Chart 13 illustrates this point across three time horizons given our view of fair value on the 10-year Treasury yield (2.67%).6 Our analysis assumes a 2% annualized dividend yield on the S&P 500. Panel 1 shows the ratio between now and year end will remain positive if U.S. equities dip by 5%. Looking ahead 6 and 12 months (Panels 2 and 3), the S&P 500 will have to drop by between 5% and 10% to signal a localized peak in the stock-to-bond ratio. Chart 12Consumers' Expectations For Equity Returns Are Elevated Chart 13Scenarios For Stock-To-Bond Ratio Bottom Line: Despite heightened consumer sentiment toward equities, we expect the stock-to-bond ratio to move higher in the next 6 to 12 months. Nonetheless, investors should be prudent with risk assets, paring back any maximum overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No.", September 12, 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Disconnected," September 11, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Shelter From The Storm, "September 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Student Loan Blues: Can't Replay What I Borrowed", November 2016. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/interactives/householdcredit/data/pdf/HHDC_2017Q2.pdf 6 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On," September 5, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A more balanced cable & satellite and movies & entertainment industry profit backdrop is signaling that only a neutral stance is warranted in both these media sub-indexes. Trim to neutral. These moves also push our S&P consumer discretionary sector weight to a benchmark allocation. Recent Changes S&P Consumer Discretionary - Downgrade to neutral. S&P Cable & Satellite - Trim to equal weight. S&P Movies & Entertainment - Downgrade to a benchmark allocation. Table 1 Feature Equities sustained recent gains last week, largely ignoring the mildly hawkish Fed. The S&P 500 is undeterred by the prospect of another interest rate hike later this year with investors focused squarely on synchronized reaccelerating global growth. Highly-sensitive growth indicators are surging: South Korean exports are on fire, the Baltic Dry Index, lumber prices and a long forgotten global growth barometer, Brent oil prices, are breaking out (Chart 1). This suggests that S&P 500 profits are well positioned to continue expanding at a healthy clip, underpinning prices. Firming economic growth will eventually show up in inflation. In the U.S., empirical evidence signals that expanding real output growth usually does lead to a pickup in core CPI, albeit with an 18 month lag (top panel, Chart 2). A tightening labor market also corroborates this data. As the year-over-year change in the unemployment rate recedes, inflation typically rises, again with a 6 quarter lag (unemployment rate shown inverted, second panel, Chart 2). Finally, the bottom two panels of Chart 2 show the Cleveland Fed's Inflation Nowcasting1 series as a 3-month annualized rate of change in core CPI and core PCE. Both point to a continued rise in inflation. This inflation backdrop is significant as it will likely sustain the corporate sector's pricing power gains. Chart 3 updates our corporate sector pricing power proxy and the related diffusion index. We also update the business sector's overall wage inflation and associated diffusion index from the latest BLS employment report. Selling prices are recovering at a time when wages remain stable. Taken together, out margin proxy indicator suggests that the ongoing profit margin expansion phase has more legs (bottom panel, Chart 3). Chart 1Vibrant Global Growth Chart 2Inflation Comeback? Chart 3Margins Should Expand Table 2 shows our updated industry group pricing power gauges, which are calculated from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. The table also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation in order to identify potential profit winners and losers. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power This analysis shows that 75% of the industries we cover are able to raise selling prices, and 45% are doing so at a faster clip than overall inflation. Importantly, inflation rates have increased since our late-June update. The outright deflating sectors dropped by one to 15 since our last update, but are still up from the 14 figure registered in April. Encouragingly, only 12 industries are experiencing a downtrend in selling price inflation, a decrease of 7 since our late-June and April reports. Chart 4Cyclicals Have The Pricing Power Advantage Moreover, 9 out of the top 12 industries with the highest selling price inflation are deep cyclicals/commodity-related (Chart 4), highlighting that the fall in the U.S. dollar is aiding the commodity complex to increase prices. The bottom of the table is equally split between 5 deflating tech industries and 5 consumer discretionary sectors. In sum, corporate sector pricing power is recovering painting a positive sales growth backdrop for the coming months. This will also prop up operating leverage, as we have been suggesting,2 as will still modest wage inflation. All in all, we envision a sound profit margin and EPS growth outlook for the back half of the year. This week we are executing a further early cyclical downshift to our portfolio. Consumer Discretionary Juggernaut Is Over Since the fed funds rate hit the zero line in December 2008, the S&P consumer discretionary index is not only the best performing GICS1 sector, but it is also the best performing asset class globally. In fact, it has risen by over 384% since December 1, 2008, nearly double the S&P 500's return. Even if one recalculates the GICS1 sector returns since the March 2009 broad market trough, U.S. consumer discretionary stocks still come out on top. Interestingly, relative performance bottomed in July 2008 (Chart 5), roughly two months before Lehman's collapse and in advance of that autumn's trough in deep cyclicals/China & EM levered equity plays. Simply put, U.S. discretionary equities sniffed out a massive reflationary impulse. This sector is extremely sensitive to interest rate changes and the quick slashing of the fed funds rate to zero and undertaking of unconventional monetary policies worked in their favor. Fast forward to today and our sense is that there are high odds that the consumer discretionary juggernaut is over and thus we are downgrading exposure to neutral. The Fed last week announced the commencement of the renormalization of its balance sheet. If consumer discretionary stocks are the ultimate beneficiaries of zero interest rate policy and the quantitative easing experiment, the unwinding of these emergency policies should also work in reverse (Chart 5). In other words, a winding down of the Fed's balance sheet and a rising fed funds rate should eat into consumer discretionary relative returns (top panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Mind The Fed's Balance Sheet Chart 6Rates, Money Growth... Money growth has also taken a backseat. M1 money supply is decelerating and so is M2 growth. Historically, money creation and relative performance have been joined at the hip and the current message is to lighten up on discretionary stocks (bottom panel, Chart 6). Beyond tighter, at the margin, monetary policy capping this early cyclical sectors future returns, energy inflation is also working against the S&P consumer discretionary index. The recent knee-jerk jump in retail gasoline prices will dent consumer disposable incomes as higher prices at the pump act as a tax on consumers. Our consumer drag indicator, capturing both rising interest rates and gasoline prices, is weighing on relative performance momentum (bottom panel, Chart 7). Nevertheless, there are some sizable positive offsets preventing us from downgrading exposure all the way to underweight. Recovering household net worth has historically been a boon for discretionary consumer outlays (second panel, Chart 8). Consumers feeling more flush, coupled with the jump in confidence, typically underpin real PCE growth. Tack on the fresh all-time highs in real median incomes, with the latest two year period registering the highest income gains since the history of the data, and the ingredients are in place for sustained gains in consumer spending (third & bottom panels, Chart 8). Finally, relative valuations and technicals have unwound previously expensive and overbought conditions, respectively. The S&P consumer discretionary forward P/E currently trades at a mild discount to the broad market and below the historical mean, and our Technical Indicator still hovers near washed out levels (Chart 9). Chart 7...And Energy Prices Weigh##br## On Consumer Discretionary Chart 8Positive ##br##Offsets... Chart 9...With Washed##br## Out Technicals Bottom Line: Adding it up, the Fed's historic exit from unconventional monetary policies, coupled with higher interest rates and gasoline prices, which are all income sapping, signal that only a benchmark allocation is warranted in the S&P consumer discretionary sector. We are executing this downgrade to neutral by trimming the media heavyweight sub-index (comprising cable & satellite and movies & entertainment) to a benchmark exposure. Intermittent Cable Signal Similar to the broad consumer discretionary index, cable & satellite stocks have been on a tear since troughing at the onset of the Great Recession. The more defensive in nature cable-related spending served as a catalyst to push up relative performance to all-time highs (Chart 10). This defensive industry backdrop is also evident in the positive correlation between the U.S. dollar and relative share prices. Empirical evidence shows that over the past three decades cable stocks outperform during dollar bull markets and suffer during periods of U.S. dollar weakness (Chart 10). Synchronized global growth is allowing other G10 central banks to play catch up to the Fed, which raised rates for the first time this cycle in December 2015. As a result, this looming coordinated G10 tightening monetary policy backdrop has forced investors out of the greenback. Given that the cable & satellite index sources nearly 100% of its revenues domestically, in a relative sense, the year-to-date U.S. softness is negative for sales/profits (Chart 10). On the industry operating front, there are some demand cracks forming. Cable outlays are trailing overall PCE and are anchoring relative share price momentum (middle panel, Chart 11). This message is corroborated by the softness in the ISM services survey that has been negatively diverging from ISM manufacturing. Waning services demand has historically been a bad omen for relative profit growth. At a minimum, a leveling off in the V-shaped recovery in sell-side analysts relative EPS expectations is in order (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 10Dollar Blues Chart 11Demand Softening Worrisomely, recent comments from Comcast that subscriber losses in the current quarter will likely erase all of last year's gains are disconcerting. This anecdote also confirms that demand for cable services is failing. The second panel of Chart 12 shows that real cable spending peaked in early 2014 and since then has been continually losing traction. If it were not for the successful offset from price hikes, cable companies would be in dire straits. The cable operators' ability to lift selling prices is undeniable and unmatched with a multi-decade track record, and remains solid despite the plethora of industry woes of late (Chart 13).Recent chatter that Charter Communications is about to be gobbled up is another factor underpinning cable pricing power. Additional industry M&A activity will take supply out of the market; recall that Charter bought out Time Warner Cable last year with positive industry pricing power results. The implication is that industry sales will remain resilient. Chart 12Margin Squeeze Alert Chart 13But Pricing Power And Valuations Are Tailwinds Tack on compelling relative valuations with the relative price-to-cash flow ratio probing 5-year lows and the industry's threats are likely well reflected following the recent derating phase (bottom panel, Chart 13). Netting it all out, a more balanced cable industry profit backdrop is signaling that only a neutral stance is warranted in this media sub-index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P cable & satellite index to neutral and lock in gains of 5% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH. Movies & Entertainment: Intermission Similar to the S&P cable & satellite downgrade to neutral, the S&P movies & entertainment media sub-index no longer deserves an overweight and we recommend trimming exposure to neutral. Cord cutting is not a new phenomenon and content providers have been regrouping in order to fend off cutthroat competition from Netflix and similar outfits. This is a secular industry force that traditional media outlets must embrace and adapt to rather than be ground down by inertia. M&A activity has been a key defense mechanism for this sector and share count retirement explains a sizable part of the torrid relative performance since the Great Recession (Chart 14). This source of industry support is in late stages on the eve of the mega deal involving Time Warner. Demand for movies and entertainment has also come under pressure lately as depicted by the deceleration in recreation PCE. The softness in the ISM services survey is a yellow flag (Chart 15). The hurricane catastrophe is disquieting in the near-term, especially given the unintended consequence of the spike in gasoline prices. Historically, rising prices at the pump eat into demand for recreation activities (third panel, Chart 15). Chart 14End Of Share Retirement? Chart 15Decreasing Demand... In a broader context, when overall media-related consumer outlays suffer a setback, as is currently the case, relative forward profit estimates tend to follow suit and vice versa. The implication is that the earnings-led decline in relative share prices likely has more room to fall (bottom panel, Chart 15). All of this is transpiring in softening industry pricing power. While selling prices are still expanding, the growth rate has been cut in half since peaking early last year. Input cost inflation is not offering any positive offsets. Chart 3 showed that our broad based wage inflation diffusion index is plunging, but movies & entertainment executives have been fighting for talent, boosting industry wage growth. Taken together, they are sending a negative signal for sky high margins that appear vulnerable to a squeeze (Chart 16). Nevertheless, there is some light at the end of the tunnel for this media sub-group. Disney recently announced that it would pull content out of Netflix and start its own streaming service, disintermediating its core movie and sports (ESPN) content. Content providers in general are also working on introducing/beefing up their own streaming services options in order to better compete with online-only rivals. Live television (news and sports in particular) are still a near-monopoly that traditional media content providers are working hard to preserve. Moreover, diversified business models also assist in cushioning the cord cutting secular decline in the content business segments. Importantly, consumer confidence is pushing decade highs and will likely make all-time highs prior to the end of the business cycle. Historically, relative performance and consumer sentiment have been positively correlated for the better part of the past 22 years. Currently, a wide gap has opened and there are good odds of a catch up phase in the former (top panel, Chart 17). Chart 16...Showing Up In Loss Of Pricing Power Chart 17Cheap With Low EPS Growth Hurdle Finally, we refrain from turning very negative on this index as we deem that most of the bearish news is already reflected in historically inexpensive valuations on below par relative sales and EPS 12-month forward expectations (middle & bottom panels, Chart 17). Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P movies & entertainment index to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MOVI - DIS, TWX, FOXA, FOX, VIAB. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.clevelandfed.org/our-research/indicators-and-data/inflation-nowcasting.aspx 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Operating Leverage To The Rescue?" dated April 17, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

The dominant theme this week in U.S. Equity Strategy has been the acceleration in global trade. South Korea, the archetypal global trade bellwether, saw its exports grow by 16% in the first seven months this year with a 31% increase in the first three weeks of September. Such growth reinforces our thesis that we are in the early stages of a global capex resurgence. Global industrial machinery is heavily levered to changes in DM capital goods orders; the recent modest shift to growth in the latter has driven a surge in highly cyclical global machine orders (second panel). Paired with strong domestic demand (third panel) and an export-accommodative currency, U.S. industrial machinery manufacturers should be particularly well positioned to see earnings growth outpace the rest of the S&P 500. The market has been somewhat less sanguine than both us and the sell-side community; earnings estimates have been outpacing the index, resulting in a fall in valuation multiples year-to-date. Validation of those estimates seems likely to be the key catalyst for the index; stay overweight industrial machinery. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INDM - ITW, IR, SWK, PH, FTV, DOV, PNR, XYL, SNA, FLS.

Highlights A major investment theme for the coming years will be the resynchronization of developed economy monetary policies. Expect substantial further convergence between U.S. T-bond yields and both German bund yields and Swedish bond yields. This yield convergence necessarily supports the currency crosses EUR/USD and SEK/USD. Underweight U.K. consumer services versus the FTSE100. Overweight German consumer services versus the DAX. The September 24 German election and October 1 proposed referendum on Catalan independence are not major catalysts for the financial markets. Feature A major investment theme for the coming years will be the resynchronization of developed economy monetary policies. As monetary policy resynchronizes, it will become clear that the extreme desynchronization of monetary policies over the past few years was the great anomaly (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). This anomaly reached its peak in 2014 when policies at the ECB and the Federal Reserve moved in diametrically opposite directions. The ECB signalled the start of its quantitative easing just as the Fed began to end its own. Chart of the WeekThe Desynchronization Of Monetary##br## Policy Was An Anomaly Chart I-2The Desynchronization Of Monetary##br## Policy Was An Anomaly Why Did Monetary Policy Desynchronize? The extreme desynchronization of monetary policy would not have happened if it was just about economics. On the basis of the hard economic data, the ECB could have emulated the unconventional policies of the Fed, BoJ and BoE years before it eventually did in 2015. If it had, ECB policy would have been much more synchronized with the other major central banks. However, unconventional monetary policy wasn't, and isn't, just about economics. The ECB faced, and still faces, much tougher political and technical hurdles than other central banks. The euro area does not have one government, it has 19. The ECB had to convince sceptical core euro area governments that zero and negative interest rate policy and bond buying were not just a bailout for the periphery, especially with the euro debt crisis so fresh in the mind. Likewise, the euro area does not have one sovereign bond, it has 19. To design and implement an asset purchase program in the euro area is much more complicated than in the U.S., Japan or the U.K. But by mid-2014 it had become clear that each wave of unconventional monetary easing - through its impact on exchange rates - had allowed other major economies to 'steal' some inflation from the euro area (Chart I-3). With the ECB still undershooting its inflation mandate, it was becoming a dereliction of duty for the ECB not to do what the Fed, BoJ and BoE had already done several years earlier. As the saying goes, it is better for a reputation to fail conventionally, than to succeed unconventionally. Chart I-3Currency Depreciations "Steal" Inflation From Other Economies Why Will Monetary Policy Resynchronize? Three years and several trillion euros later, the ECB can feel it has had a fair crack at unconventional easing (Chart I-4). At the same time, the central bank must contend with fresh political and technical hurdles. How many more German bunds can it realistically buy without irking Germany's policymakers? Chart I-4The ECB Has Had A Fair Crack At QE The ECB is also aware that ultra-loose monetary policy - by compressing banks' net interest margins - endangers banks' fragile profitability. This impairs the bank credit channel which is the mainstay of private sector credit intermediation in the euro area.1 Meanwhile, the euro area's configuration of solid economic growth, solid job growth and subdued inflation is common to most large developed economies (the exception is the U.K. which we explain below). Putting all of this together, the theme for the coming years has to be monetary policy resynchronization, one way or the other. One way is that the more hawkish central banks will become less hawkish, as subdued inflation limits the scope for monetary policy tightening. The other way is that the more dovish central banks will become less dovish as the benefits of ultra-accommodation diminish and the costs rise. Or, both ways will happen together. Nowhere are negative bond yields more absurd and more inappropriate than in Sweden (Chart I-5). In just three years the economy has grown 12% and house prices have surged 50%. Furthermore, unlike in other parts of Europe, the housing market in Sweden did not suffer a meaningful setback in either 2008 or 2011. Yet Sweden's negative interest rate policy means that it stills pays people to borrow and further bid up house prices. If anywhere is at risk of a bubble from ultra-accommodative monetary policy, Sweden must be it. For bond yield spreads and currencies - which are relative trades - it doesn't really matter how the resynchronization of monetary policies occurs. We expect substantial further convergence between U.S. T-bond yields and both German bund yields and Swedish bond yields. And this yield convergence necessarily supports the currency crosses EUR/USD and SEK/USD (Chart I-6). Chart 5A Negative Bond Yield ##br##In Sweden Is Absurd Chart I-6If The Swedish Bond Yield Shortfall ##br##Compresses, The Krona Will Rally The Myth Of The Beneficial Currency Devaluation Sharp depreciations in a currency result in an economy 'stealing' inflation from its major trading partners. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 suggest that absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, the gap between U.K. and euro area inflation would be almost 1% less than it is. Chart I-7The Weaker Pound Lifted ##br##U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-8...And U.K. ##br##Core Inflation So the Brexit vote explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. Which means that the pound's weakness has choked households' real incomes. Against this, textbook economic theory says that a currency devaluation should make a country's exports more competitive and thereby boost the net export contribution to economic growth. But in the textbook the only thing that is supposed to change is the exchange rate. The textbook assumes that the country's trading framework with its partners remains unchanged. In the case of the U.K. leaving the EU, this assumption clearly does not apply, mitigating the concept of the 'beneficial currency devaluation'. A lot of the benefits of the textbook devaluation come because firms can trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. This process requires investment - for example, in marketing and distribution. If Brexit means that many of those markets are no longer available, or come with tariffs, then firms will hold off making the necessary investments - unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. We also hear the myth of the beneficial currency devaluation applied to the weaker members of the euro area. As in, why don't these countries just break free from the euro, and devalue their way to prosperity? The simple answer is that if they left the euro, they would also risk losing access to the largest single market in the world - defeating the whole purpose of the beneficial currency devaluation! A Tale Of Two Consumers Chart I-9A Good Pair Trade: Long German Consumer ##br##Services, Short U.K. Consumer Services For the time being, hawkish comments from the BoE have given the pound a boost. But U.K. consumer spending now faces one of two headwinds. If the BoE follows through with a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. Alternatively, if the BoE backs off from its threat, the pound will once again weaken, push up inflation and weigh on real incomes. So for the time being, stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus the FTSE100. In Germany, the opposite logic applies. Stay overweight German consumer services versus the DAX. Euro strength helps German consumers in as much as it reduces the prices of imported food and energy. But for German exporters, the strong euro hurts the translation of their multi-currency international profits back into local currency terms. A good pair trade is to be long German consumer services, short U.K. consumer services (Chart I-9). Finally, regarding two upcoming political events - the September 24 German election and the October 1 proposed referendum on Catalan independence, we do not see either as a major catalyst for the financial markets. In the case of the German election, it is because no likely outcome is especially malign (or benign). In the case of the Catalan referendum, it is because it will be hard to draw any meaningful conclusion from the result, given that Madrid has ruled the referendum illegal - and many 'unionists' are unlikely to participate. Please note that there is no Weekly Report scheduled for next week as I will be at our New York Conference. I hope to see some of you there. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In the euro area, small and medium sized companies tend to access credit through banks rather than through the bond market. Fractal Trading Model This week, we note an excessive underperformance of U.K. personal and household goods (dominated by BAT, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser) versus U.K. food and beverages (dominated by Diageo and Associated British Foods). Go long U.K. personal and household goods versus U.K. food and beverages with a profit target / stop loss of 4.5%. In other trades, short nickel / long silver hit its 8% profit target, while short MSCI China / long MSCI EM hit its 2.5% stop loss. This leaves three open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

We raised the S&P air freight & logistics group to overweight earlier this year based principally on the index being a chief beneficiary should green shoots in global trade proliferate. Since then, global export expectations have shot higher and global ton miles have staged the best recovery since the GFC (second panel). Anecdotally on its earnings call this week, FedEx called this year the "best year for global trade in years". Despite the overwhelmingly positive backdrop, the air freight & logistics index has barely budged. The result is that valuation multiples have collapsed to a fifteen year low (bottom panel). We continue to think the positive earnings momentum in this index can be ignored for only so long; the air freight & logistics group should see a long-overdue rerating. We reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.

Special Report

Highlights A shares are under-owned and under-researched beyond Chinese borders. Global investors' interest on Chinese A shares will inevitably increase. The A-share market historically has been a low-beta play, and the Chinese domestic sectors tend to move together with one another rather than with their respective global sector benchmarks. The superior long-term performance of Chinese equities has been accompanied with much greater volatility in both earnings and prices compared with EM and DM benchmarks. Some larger-weight sectors, particularly banks, have significantly dragged down the valuation matrix of the broad A-share market, while some smaller-weight sectors are more dearly valued. Overall A shares are still more expensive compared with other global bourses. Feature The MSCI's decision of partial inclusion of Chinese domestic A shares in its widely followed EM and world equity indices has put this asset class on global investors' radar screens. The A-share market, which only began to develop some 30 years ago as a trial balloon for capitalism, has already become the world's second-largest by market capitalization. Yet it remains decisively mysterious outside Chinese borders. Not only is the market notoriously volatile, alternately driven by euphoria and panics, it has also been largely isolated from the outside world thanks to China's capital account controls. All of this has made global investors either unable or unwilling to commit to this asset class, which also means it is both under-owned and under-researched from global investors' perspective. This trend will inevitably change, as the Chinese economy continues to gain global significance and as Chinese regulators continue to liberalize capital account control measures. The People's Bank of China is reportedly drafting a policy package to further open up the country's financial sector to foreigners. This week's report intends to shed light on this obscure asset class. A Class Of Its Own The A-share market's juvenile and isolated nature has generated some unique features that are not only different from global and EM bourses, but also from their overseas-listed investable peers. First, Chinese A shares have a systemically lower correlation with other major global bourses, which is not surprising due to the market's isolation from global fund flows. The three-year moving beta of the market with the S&P 500 is slightly over 0.5, according to our calculation - much lower than both EM and Chinese investable equities.1 A shares' correlation with the rest of the world, however, has been steadily rising in the past 10 years (Chart 1). Foreign capital has indeed been given increasing access to A shares in the past decade through various channels such as qualified foreign institutional investors (QFIIs), the RMB Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors (RQFIIs) and more recently the "connect" programs linking Hong Kong Exchange with mainland bourses (Chart 2). However, we doubt A shares' rising beta has much to do with China's capital account liberation, as foreign ownership is still negligible. Rather, we suspect it is more due to China's rising importance in the global economy. In other words, global markets have become increasingly sensitive to the "China factor" that is also driving A shares. Chart 1A Shares' Low And Rising Beta Chart 2Rising Foreign Access To A shares Moreover, A shares' low correlation with other global markets can also be observed at the sector level. Table 1 summarizes A-share sectors' correlations with their respective EM and DM sector benchmarks as well as their China investable counterparts, which are categorically lower than the cross-sector correlations among other markets. For example, A-share energy stocks' correlations with their sector counterparts in the China investable universe, EM and DM are 0.58, 0.48 and 0.36, respectively. In comparison, China investable energy stocks have a correlation of 0.84 and 0.72, respectively with the EM and DM sector benchmarks, and the EM energy sector's correlation with its DM counterpart is 0.8. In other words, sector selection rather than country selection matters fundamentally for the performances of DM and EM focused portfolios, including investable China funds. A-share sector performances, however, have shown much greater idiosyncrasy from the general sector trends in global markets. Table 1A shares Sectors Are Less Correlated With Global Peers... Instead, there have been much stronger correlations among the performances of A-share sectors compared with their investable peers and other global bourses. Appendix 1 provides a detailed breakdown of cross-sector correlations of these major markets. Taken together, the average cross-sector correlation among A shares is 0.75, compared with about 0.55 in all other markets (Chart 3). This, in our view, is likely due to exceptionally high retail investor participation in the A-share market. Unlikely other markets that are largely driven by sophisticated institutional investors with research capabilities, Chinese A shares are to a much greater extent driven by herd-following retail investors, who put little emphasis on fundamentals. Anecdotal evidence abounds that investors buy or sell a stock based on price per share rather than per share earnings metrics, and naively chase laggards in anticipation of a catchup, even without clear fundamental catalysts. This could change as institutional investors take a greater share in A-share market trading and ownership, but the process will be slow and gradual. Chart 3... But Are Closely Correlated ##br##Among Each Other In short, the A-share market historically has been a low-beta play, and the Chinese domestic sectors tend to move together with one another rather than with their respective global sector benchmarks. From a portfolio management of view, including A shares should provide diversification benefits in managed global and EM portfolios. Greater Returns... Since its inception in the early 1990s, Chinese A shares have been on a powerful and volatile uptrend (Chart 4). The market has followed a well-defined central trendline, but with extreme price moves on both sides, alternating between massive overshoots and undershoots. Measured by the Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) Composite Index, launched in 1991 with the longest price history, stock prices have increased by over 20-fold since 1991 in RMB terms. Since 2000, A-shares' total return index, price appreciation and dividend income combined has rallied by about five-fold in U.S. dollar terms - massively outperforming both global and EM benchmarks as well as investable Chinese stocks (Chart 5). A-shares' outperformance against global bourses is largely due to faster earnings growth rather than multiples expansion. Earnings of Chinese domestic and investable shares have risen by seven- and 10-fold respectively since 2000, both outpacing their EM and DM peers (Chart 5, middle panel). Importantly, while DM has been the bright spot in the ongoing multi-year bull market, it has been a chronic laggard over a more extended time horizon - both earnings and total returns of DM have significantly lagged EM in general and Chinese shares in particular since 2000. It is commonly argued that economic growth has little to do with stock market performance, and therefore a country's superior growth outlook does not necessarily lead to superior equity returns for investors. We find this view plausible. There is no question that the near-term correlation between a country's economic growth and stock prices is low empirically. However, economic growth should be a defining factor for asset returns over the long run. After all, stock prices are ultimately driven by earnings, which in turn are driven by economic growth. Granted, stock markets are an emotional discounting mechanism, and prices can and do deviate from earnings fundamentals from time to time - they will inevitably mean-revert over the long run. Chinese GDP has expanded by a staggering 10-fold since 2000 in dollar terms, which is the fundamental driving force behind China's long-term earnings growth and stock market returns (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 4A shares Powerful And Volatile Long-term Uptrend Chart 5GDP, Earnings And Stocks Prices ... With Greater Risks The superior long-term performance of Chinese equities, however, has been accompanied with much greater volatility in both earnings and prices compared with EM and DM benchmarks. This is easy to observe in the dramatic fluctuations in A-share prices; from its inception, the market has been routinely characterized by massive boom-bust cycles. Table 2 summarizes the historical returns of A shares in comparison with their investable and EM/DM peers. A few points are worth highlighting. Table 2Statistical Summary Chart 6A Shares' volatility Is High... First, the A-share market has historically yielded much greater dispersion of returns compared with other bourses, including Chinese investable stocks, as shown in the box-and-whisker plot (Chart 6).2 Since 2000, the A-share market has achieved the highest cumulative returns among all markets, but it has also recorded the biggest monthly gain and deepest monthly loss. It has the widest gap between first-quartile and third quartile returns, the greatest risk of loss and the biggest historical value at risk (VaR)(See Appendix 2 for return distributions of various markets). Overall, the standard deviation of A-share monthly returns historically is 8.4%, compared with 7.7% for the Chinese investable market and 6.4% and 4.4% respectively for the EM and DM benchmarks. On a risk-adjusted basis, A shares have delivered the highest risk-adjusted returns since 2000, but the risk-return profile has been decisively poorer evaluated in both a five- and 10-year horizon (Table 3). The Sharpe ratio of A shares since 2000 is 0.39, compared with 0.35 and 0.23 for EM and DM benchmarks.3 Over a five-year and 10-year period, however, A shares' Sharpe ratios were significantly lower than other markets. Similarly, A shares' Sortino ratio since 2000 was superior, but inferior over shorter-term horizons. In contrast, DM has delivered the highest risk-adjusted returns in the past five years and 10 years, but has lagged since 2000. Indeed, DM stocks, particularly the U.S. market, have delivered stellar performance since the aftermath of the global financial crisis with very low volatility, while Chinese equities and EM stocks in general have been plagued with numerous macro concerns. It remains to be seen, however, whether this divergence can be sustained going forward. Table 3Risk And Return Characteristics Chart 7...But Declining Finally, although A shares historically have been structurally more volatile than other markets, the gap has been gradually narrowing - a sign of A shares' growing maturity (Chart 7). As the market continues to institutionalize, we expect price volatility will likely continue to decline. A shares, dubbed as a highly speculative "virtual casino" in the early 1990s, will become an increasingly important venue for Chinese households to park their wealth, with more moderate risk-return tradeoffs. Sector Composition And Valuation Perspective From the humble start of a handful of listed firms in the early 1990s to the world's second-largest equity market by capitalization, A shares have experienced a dramatic expansion and significant changes. Along with the two mainboards in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges dominated by large-cap stocks, several "peripheral" boards have also been established to cater to the funding needs of small and medium-sized companies and high-tech startups. Chart 8 shows the sector components of A shares - as in most equity markets, banks and financial firms account for a disproportionally large weight in the A-share index. However, compared with the Chinese investable universe,4 A shares are more diversified and are a closer representation of the sectoral structure of the broader Chinese economy. Chart 8A Shares Sector Breakdown On an aggregate level, A shares currently look cheap compared with historical norms (Chart 9). Our composite valuation indicator, an average of conventional valuation indicators such as price-to-trailing earnings, price-to-book and dividend yield, shows that A shares are currently trading at close to one standard deviation below its historical average. Under the surface, however, the market-cap weighted aggregate valuation indicators disguise some significant differences among different sectors: large-cap A-shares, mainly banks, are trading at large discounts to their respective historical means, but smaller-weight sectors, particularly technology, consumer staples and healthcare, are trading at higher multiples. Chart 10 shows a simple average of various valuation ratios of the 10 Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors.5 With the exception of price-to-cash, the equal-weighted valuation indicators are more expensive than their respective market weight-based versions, according to our calculation. This means some larger-weight sectors, particularly banks, have significantly dragged down the valuation matrix of the broad market, while some smaller-weight sectors are more dearly valued. However, none of the valuation ratios appear extreme in a historical context. Chart 9A Shares Appear Cheap... Chart 10...But With Big Sector Gaps Summary And Conclusions Compared with other bourses, Chinese A shares currently are still more expensive (Table 4). A-shares' valuation premium may be justified from a long-term point of view, given its stronger earnings growth outlook. However, investable Chinese stocks currently are still much more attractively valued, and thus remain our favored "China play" at the moment. Table 4Valuation Ratio: Market Rate Vs. Sector Average Nonetheless, global investor interest in A shares will inevitably increase going forward, as the Chinese economy continues to gain global significance and regulators continue to deregulate the country's capital account controls. A shares' relatively low correlation with other global bourses also provides unique diversification benefits to managed global and EM portfolios, and foreigners' extremely low ownership in this asset class also generates constant tailwinds. In addition, as the market continues to mature, volatility will abate, further improving its attractiveness for global long-term investors. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Stella Peng, Research Assistant stellap@bcaresearch.com 1 All based on weekly returns. China Shanghai A share index is used for A share index, and MSCI China Free USD total index is used for the China investable market. All other markets are calculated using U.S. dollar total return MSCI indexes, unless otherwise specified. 2 A box and whisker chart shows the degrees of returns concentration in a given time frame. The top and bottom lines of the box indicate the first and third quartiles of the return distribution respectively; the horizontal line inside the box is the median; and the tips of the vertical lines stand for the maximum and minimum returns. 3 The Sharpe ratio is calculated as monthly returns minus one-month U.S. dollar LIBOR (as risk free rate for dollar-denominated investors) divided by the standard deviation of returns. The Sortino ratio is a variation of the Sharpe ratio, which measures the excess returns divided by the standard deviation of negative asset returns (or the downside deviation). 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Closer Look At Chinese Equity Valuations," dated August 31, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Includes Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Energy, Financials, Health Care, Industrials, Information Technology, Materials, Telecommunication Services and Utilities. Real Estate is included in Financials, due to its limited data availability as a stand-alone GICS sector. Appendix 1 Cross-Sector Correlations Of Major Markets China A China Investable Emerging Markets Developed Markets All Country World Appendix 2 Distribution Of Market Returns Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations