Equities

Highlights Global QE has made bonds as risky as equities. Thereby, global QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if global bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if global bond yields march much higher. The 'rule of 4' for equity/bond allocation: sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. Above 3.5 means a neutral stance in equities... ... Above 4 means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekAt Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative The end is nigh for QE. The ECB will exit its asset purchase program at the end of the year. In doing so, it will mark the end of an epoch which began in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a ten year period in which at least one of the world's major central banks has been buying a defined quantity of assets every month (Chart I-2). Approaching the end of the epoch, it is fitting to ask: how did the global QE stimulant work, and what will be the withdrawal symptoms? Chart I-2The End Is Nigh For QE As far back as 2011, in a provocative report titled QE And Riots we predicted that: "QE... will exacerbate already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it" Events in the subsequent seven years have fully vindicated our prediction. Simply put, QE has front-loaded asset returns which would ordinarily have accrued in the distant future to the here and now - in the form of sharply higher capital values. So if you were invested in the financial markets or most housing markets, congratulations, you have received a bonanza; if you weren't, bad luck, there's not much left for you (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return To understand why, we need to delve deeper into behavioural economics. QE: Why The Stimulant Was So Powerful Central banks admit that there is a lower bound for interest rates below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Once policy rates hit the lower bound, central banks can unleash a 'plan B': a commitment to keep policy rates at this lower bound for an extended period. QE is simply a powerful signalling tool for this commitment. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet explains: "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound)" The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates##br## Low Pulls Down Bond Yields Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent breakthroughs in behavioural economics. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the asymmetry in their future direction makes bonds very risky investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation - nominal or real - vanishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically (Chart I-5). The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in behavioural economics has led Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman to conclude: negative skew is the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment's risk. Chart I-5Bonds Become Much Riskier ##br## At Low Bond Yields Professor Kahneman's work reveals a profound truth: global QE has made bonds as risky as equities (Chart I-6). The ramification is that equities and other risk-assets no longer need to lure investors with an excess return over bond returns. QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge.1 Chart I-6Global QE Has Made Bonds ##br##As Risky As Equities One counterargument we hear is that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors will still accept a lower return from bonds. But this argument is flawed. Just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investors, equities are a diversifier for bond investors. Indeed in recent years, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump's shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, with the same negative skew and symmetrical diversification properties, both assets must offer the same prospective return. The breakthroughs in behavioural economics provide some good news and some bad news. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields The Required Return On ##br##Equities Plunges, So Equity Valuations Surge Financial Markets Dwarf The World Economy One common misunderstanding about QE is that it has been the bond purchasing itself that has held down bond yields. This seems a natural assumption because we connect the act of buying with higher prices (lower yields). Moreover, the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four' central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. But let's put this into context. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to something similar. In this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is peanuts. To reiterate, QE's impact came not from the $10 trillion of central bank purchases in itself, but from the signal that interest rates would remain at the lower bound for a long time, mathematically requiring bond yields to approach the lower bound too;3 and from the consequent equalization of negative skew on bonds and risk-assets, mathematically requiring an exponential rerating of all risk-asset valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Now note that the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. World GDP is worth much less, around $80 trillion. So if returns from these richly valued risk-assets were reallocated from the here and now back to the distant future, through lower capital values today, there would be a very real risk that current spending could take a dive. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' are just tracking the level of the stock market (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Financial Conditions Are Just##br## Tracking The Stock Market The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds On February 1 this year, we advised that the big threat to risk-asset valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." This advice has proved to be remarkably prescient. Whenever bond yields have been at the lower end of recent ranges, the correlation with equities has been positive, meaning equities have risen in tandem with bond yields. But whenever bond yields have moved to the upper end of recent ranges, the correlation has abruptly flipped to negative, meaning equities have fallen as bond yields have risen (Chart of the Week). While many strategists and commentators are fixated on the risks from trade wars and/or the global economy, our non-consensus call is that the biggest threat to risk-assets comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. In this regard the bond yield that matters is the global bond yield. Previously we defined this in terms of the German 10-year bund yield and the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield. But today for completeness, we would like to add another important component: the Japanese 10-year government bond yield. The global bond yield is a weighted average of the three components. But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. A sum above 3.5 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global yield rising above 2% - means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017 3 In contrast, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the underperformance of emerging market versus developed market equities is technically stretched and ripe for at least a brief countertrend reversal. The 65-day trade is long EM versus DM with a profit target of 2.5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-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

Special Report

Highlights The regulatory or "stroke of pen" risk is rising on FAANG stocks - Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google; The U.S. anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb anti-competitive actions but has evolved to focus mostly on consumer welfare and prices; A shift toward the original regulatory regime would threaten the FAANGs, particularly Google and Amazon; A trade war hit to tech earnings could be the catalyst for a more general selloff today - but this is not our base case; For now, the market will view regulatory risk as noise and tech stocks will likely enter a blow-off phase; We remain neutral, preferring S&P software and hardware while underweighting semiconductors. Feature "I don't know what Twitter is up to." Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, July 29, 2018 "I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business." President Donald J. Trump, March 29, 2018 "If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade, with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity." Senator John Sherman, 1890 Social media companies have had a terrible week, with Twitter falling 21% on July 27th and Facebook 19% on July 26th. Facebook posted weaker than expected earnings, but investors appeared to be particularly concerned with a miss in monthly active users. The shortfall in active users may have been affected by the new EU privacy rules, which came into force in May. Twitter's fall from grace came even though its revenues were up 24% on the year, with a record profit of $100 million. However, its effort to delete "bots" and suspicious user accounts brought its user total down to 335 million, from 336 million, prompting fears that the platform was slowing down. Twitter's and Facebook's enormous price volatility, despite decent earnings figures, reveals that investors are jittery about the performance of technology stocks, epitomized by the so-called FAANGs - Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. They are right to be, given that there are three broad risks to these companies: The next big thing: Before Facebook, there was MySpace. It is not inconceivable that new platforms - for instance, ones that emphasize privacy or that redistribute a portion of advertising revenue with users - could replace current market leaders. Revenue model: Although they are perceived to be cutting-edge technology companies, social media firms generate vast amount of their revenue through advertising. Facebook and Google have captured 25% of global media advertising revenues.1 At some point, Internet companies will reach a ceiling on this revenue as the attrition rate of local newspapers slows, as foreign markets introduce local alternatives (RenRen or Weibo in China, VKontakte in Russia), and as non-tariff barriers to trade begin impacting their international expansion (China's Internet Security Law). Regulation: Finally, regulatory pressure could grow for a number of reasons. First, European concerns regarding user privacy could migrate to the U.S. where a majority of voters already believe that tech companies need greater oversight (Chart 1). In fact, Americans now see tech companies as having as pernicious an influence as energy companies (Chart 2). Second, the U.S. approach to anti-trust problems could evolve away from the current paradigm that focuses on delivering lower prices to consumers. Third, President Trump and his conservative allies could target social media companies with perceived liberal bias for purely political reasons. Chart 1Majority Of Americans Want Tech Regulated Chart 2Tech And Energy Companies Now In Same Boat We have no particular insight into the competitive landscape of social media, web browsing, and Internet retail industries, so we will leave the first two threats to the experts in the field. Instead, we will focus in this report on the third threat, the "stroke of pen" regulatory risk. From Standard Oil To The Chicago School - America's Anti-Trust Framework Today's anti-trust regulatory framework has significantly deviated from the original intent behind the 1890 Sherman Act. As Lina M. Khan argues in "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," "Congress enacted antitrust laws to rein in the power of industrial trusts, the large business organizations that had emerged in the late nineteenth century. Responding to a fear of concentrated power, antitrust sought to distribute it."2 Railroad construction in the late nineteenth century, largely financed by the municipal debt of farm-belt states, evolved from a shrewd capex investment in a new technology to a mania. To boost sagging profits, railroad barons fixed their prices to reduce competition. State anti-trust laws that emerged out of this era, the so-called "Granger laws," sought to curb monopolistic behavior by giving states control over railroad operations. These state laws ultimately coalesced into federal legislation, the 1890 Sherman Act. No trust had a larger impact on the U.S. legal and regulatory infrastructure than the case of Standard Oil in the early twentieth century.3 Although the company faced criticism in the immediate aftermath of the 1880s recession - particularly from the famous muckraking journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd - the dam broke for Standard Oil when the oil-price bubble popped in Kansas in 1904. A Standard Oil subsidiary - the Prairie Oil and Gas Company - decided to purchase oil by a specific gravity test, forcing some of the Kansas oil from the market. At the time, the oil boom in Kansas had turned many into stockholders in some prospecting company. When oil prices fell, so did the fortunes of these locals. The shock of the price collapse radicalized Kansas politics at the turn of the twentieth century. An idea for a state-owned oil refinery picked up steam in the state despite being labeled socialist. Ultimately, Kansas' delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives requested that the Secretary of Commerce investigate the causes of the low price of crude oil in the state. After several disastrous performances of Standard Oil executives on witness stands and in testimony, the federal government filed a petition against the company in November 1906. A large fine followed in August 1907. The 1890 Sherman Act and subsequent anti-trust policies were grounded in the theory of economic structuralism. "This view holds that a market dominated by a very small number of large companies is likely to be less competitive than a market populated with many small- and medium-sized companies." Through the 1960s, courts blocked mergers - both horizontal and vertical - and policed markets not only for size, or effect on consumer welfare, but also for conflicts of interest.4 In the 1970s and 1980s, however, the Chicago School approach gained prominence. The Chicago School rested on "faith in the efficiency of markets, propelled by profit-maximizing actors."5 While economic structuralists believed that the structure of an industry leads to market outcomes, Chicago School saw structure as the outcome of market dynamics, which themselves are sacrosanct. Chicago School adherents focused primarily on price dynamics and consumer welfare, ignoring how economic structures could create barriers to entry and thus uncompetitive markets. The most influential economist behind the Chicago School was Robert Bork, who asserted in his highly influential The Antitrust Paradox that the "only legitimate goal of antitrust is the maximization of consumer welfare."6 That said, his definition of consumer welfare was incredibly broad and revealed a clear corporate, if not a pro-monopoly, bias.7 The influential Chicago School ultimately impacted the Supreme Court, which declared in 1979 that "Congress designed the Sherman Act as a 'consumer welfare prescription.'"8 The Reagan Administration subsequently rewrote the 1968 merger guidelines to shift the focus purely to consumer welfare in the form of preventing monopolistic price increases and output restrictions. The government also stopped bringing anti-trust cases under the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits price discrimination by retailers among producers and vice versa. Bottom Line: The U.S. anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions "include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation."9 However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has taken hold of the U.S. anti-trust process, solely focusing on consumer welfare and prices. We can draw two immediate conclusions from this historical overview of U.S. anti-trust policy. First, the laws on the books have not changed since World War Two. Despite the laws remaining the same, the theory of how to apply them in courts of law has dramatically changed, as economic structuralism gave way to the Chicago School's focus on prices and consumer welfare. If President Reagan and the courts could change how these laws are administered in the 1980s, then so can subsequent administrations and courts in the future. Second, a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility - such as the 1870s-80s - can produce a political impetus for anti-trust policy. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. While the U.S. has not experienced a recession in almost a decade, it will eventually - and besides, income inequality is a prominent theme once again and a potential source of consumer discontent.10 A narrative could emerge - particularly if politically expedient - that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. Will FAANGs Be De-FAANGed? At BCA Research, we are neither regulatory nor policy experts. As such, we do not have insight into current regulatory activity involving social media companies, Google, or Amazon. The preceding section merely illustrates that the federal government's approach to the anti-trust process could change. Indeed, the Obama administration signaled that its approach could become more active. One quantitative approach that investors can use to assess the risk of anti-trust legislation is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). It is the most commonly accepted measure of market concentration, used by the Department of Justice in assessing whether a particular market is controlled by a single firm.11 Chart 3 shows our reconstruction of the HHI for the present-day era, with three examples from the past. Chart 3Market Concentration By Industry And Eras The 1911 refined petroleum sector harkens back to the aforementioned Standard Oil case; The 2001 Internet browser market refers to the United States v. Microsoft Corp that led to the June 2000 decision (later reversed on appeal) to break-up the software giant; The 1983 telecommunication sector illustrates the HHI for the telecom market at the time of the AT&T divestiture. The data is clear: of the five FAANG companies, only Google reaches a concerning level on the HHI measure. This has already made it a target of European authorities. On the other hand, competition within both streaming (Netflix, Amazon) and social networks (Facebook) appears relatively healthy. However, social networks could be at risk of European-style privacy protections. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes considerable compliance burdens on any company handling user data. California has already signed its own version of the law - the Consumer Privacy Act - which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and what companies that data is being shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest U.S. market. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies and Google, a significant uptick in privacy regulation could hurt their bottom line. On the other hand, as we discuss below, the new regulatory rules create massive barriers to entry for small firms looking to replace the tech giants. Furthermore, many of the targeted social media companies have run afoul of President Trump in particular and the broader conservative movement in general. As such, privacy advocates - who tend to lean left - and conservatives, who feel that their commentators are being silenced by Silicon Valley, could form a classic "bootleggers and abolitionists" coalition against the FAANGs (Chart 4). Finally, there is the question of Amazon. We do not construct an HHI for Amazon's place in the retail market because E-commerce only accounts for about 9.5% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart 5). Amazon has been leading the charge, but it still accounts for just under half of that 9.5% total figure (Chart 6). Chart 4Conservatives Distrust Tech Companies Chart 5E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 6Amazon Dominates Amazon's strength is that, in the current anti-trust framework, it conforms fully to the "consumer welfare" priorities elucidated by the Chicago School. Amazon, by and large, lowers prices for consumers. However, several of its practices could be seen as predatory in the more expansive, economic structuralist, approach.12 In addition, President Trump has reserved most of his Twitter scorn on the firm, particularly because CEO Jeff Bezos owns the liberal-leaning Washington Post. Bottom Line: Investors are correct to fret that the "stroke of pen" risk is rising when it comes to FAANG companies. Google scores considerably higher than either Standard Oil or Microsoft on the Department of Justice HHI. Social media companies are already under the microscope by conservative legislators and voters, who perceive them to be biased. Liberals, on the other hand, support toughened-up privacy rules that could undermine the business model of social media companies. Amazon's market dominance is overstated. However, several of its business practices could come under greater scrutiny if any administration should revert back to the original reading of the 1890 Sherman Law. Technology Stocks Have Brought The S&P 500 Up; Could They Bring It Down? It is now a well-worn understanding that the reason why the S&P 500 has performed well is largely due to the performance of a few (enormous) technology stocks (see Chart 7 and Table 1) who have seen both earnings and valuation multiples expand amid one of the longest economic growth phases in history. The preceding section certainly suggests that frothy valuations and the rising regulatory impetus imply that future upside potential is swamped by downside risk. Chart 7FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have##br## Dramatically Outperformed... Table 1...Generating 50% Of The##br## 2018 S&P 500 Return! If this negative scenario is what actually plays out in the market, the implications could be more severe than in the past. Indexed fund inflows have replaced actively managed fund outflows, as our colleagues in BCA's Global ETF Strategy recently pointed out (Chart 8).13 Considering the rise of these few technology stocks and their increasing weight in the S&P 500 and, necessarily, in the majority of ETFs, more people than ever before are invested in technology stocks, whether they know it or not. Accordingly, the performance of these stocks has become material to the household balance sheet, which is a driver of consumption and, hence, the economy. Thus, it may not be hyperbole to say the economy depends to some extent on Amazon maintaining a high valuation multiple. Chart 8ETF Inflows Offset Actively Managed Outflows Adding some weight to this thesis is the mounting concern over a global trade war. The technology sector in general is by far the most international (as defined by foreign-sourced revenues) of GICS 1 sectors. More specifically, the top three semiconductor & semiconductor equipment companies (INTC, NVDA & TXN), which collectively represent more than 50% of the weight of that index, generate on average only 17% of their revenues in the U.S. Moreover, the more dangerous and lasting trade risk emanates from the U.S.-China showdown, which centers on the technology sector. Should the worst trade outcomes occur, it is not unreasonable to see impaired technology earnings being the catalyst for a more general sell-off. We recommend underweight positions in both the S&P semiconductors and S&P semiconductor equipment indexes. We Think Not Despite the foregoing, we think a more likely scenario is actually a blow-off phase where technology stocks accelerate rather than decline in an increasingly restrictive regulatory environment. In a recent report analyzing sector performance in the last stages of the bull market, we noted that across seven iterations dating back to the 1960's, the information technology sector delivered a median 14% outperformance relative to the S&P 500 (Table 2).14 And, while returns in these stocks have been excellent this year, their gains seem modest compared to the performance in the 1999-2000 iteration. Table 2Tech Stocks Are Strong Late Cycle Performers Underpinning our expectations is the recent stock reactions to regulatory actions. Beginning with Facebook, in the week of March 26, 2018, the firm was hit with severely negative headlines. First, the Cambridge Analytica scandal pointed out that the firm may be caught on the wrong side of EU GDPR rules, followed by the firm being investigated for an EU antitrust suit for the online ad market; the stock fell 15% from the week prior. However, within two months, the stock had fully recovered and a further two months later the stock was up 18% from its starting point. Recently the stock has fallen significantly on the back of very weak guidance; the company noted that revenue growth would decelerate and operating margins would fall to the mid-30% range from the current mid-40% range. It is not unreasonable to think management may be sandbagging earnings growth to defray some of the elevated regulatory scrutiny into its outrageous profitability. Google too has seen negative regulatory headlines, having been hit with a $5 billion fine in the EU for abusing the dominance of the Android mobile operating system in July this year. The stock responded by closing higher and then rose a further 10% in the following two weeks. Overall, we think the market views regulatory risk as noise. For now. But What About The Earnings? Do They Matter? While the earnings implications of yet-to-be-proposed regulatory changes are unknowable, we believe even the pursuit of an answer is a red herring. As shown by Chart 9, the market does not appear to care about next year's earnings as valuation multiples have little consistency with either themselves or the broad market. The implication is that near-term earnings are of relatively little importance, at least compared to the long-term growth outlook. Chart 9Tech Valuations Are Meaningless Further, these companies are a collection of businesses that are not necessarily cohesive. For example, Facebook includes Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus while Amazon Web Service is a non-retail business that delivers half of Amazon's profit. A reasonable case could be made that breaking up these companies into their components could actually unlock considerable value. Lastly, new regulation, particularly with respect to privacy and data protection, is likely to create significant barriers for new entrants as compliance costs will be relatively more onerous for those companies with fewer resources. Thus, incoming privacy legislation may neuter the impact of any anti-trust legislation. Be Wary With Technology But For The Right Reasons We fully expect more regulation to remain a significant part of the conversation with respect to FAANG stocks and further expect that conversation to promote higher than normal volatility in the sector. However, we also expect the market to mostly look through this risk; buying the dip has thus far been the right approach to headline risk in technology. We think there are better reasons to remain cautious with technology. As noted above, they are heavily international and a strengthening U.S. dollar will be a headwind to 2019 earnings to a greater extent than to the broad market (please see our June 4th Weekly Report for more details). Supporting the dollar, BCA expects higher interest rates in 2018 on the back of rising inflation. Overall, we prefer old tech (S&P software and S&P technology hardware, storage & peripherals, both which are high-conviction overweights) that is levered to our synchronized global capex upcycle theme. It also boasts high cash flow and low valuations. We are less sanguine about technology early cyclicals (S&P semiconductors and S&P semiconductor equipment) which we rate as underweight. Net, we think risks are balanced in the tech sector and maintain a neutral recommendation for the S&P information technology sector. BCA Geopolitical Strategy Housekeeping In light of several announcements regarding China's efforts to ease up on economic policy, we are closing several of our trades: Short China-exposed S&P 500 Companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms - opened on May 30 for a 7.13% gain; Long DXY - opened on January 31 for a 5.85% gain; Short GBP/USD - opened on February 14 for a 6.21% gain; Long Indian equities / short Brazilian equities - opened on March 6 for a 27.54% gain. Long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities - opened on May 16 for a 2.21% gain. We still believe that Chinese structural reforms will continue, weighing on domestic and global growth. In the face of ongoing U.S. fiscal stimulus, the interplay between the two major economies will therefore continue to produce a dollar-bullish environment. However, the dollar's stretched positioning and the Chinese reflation narrative could hurt the greenback while reflating global risk assets in the near term. We will therefore look for an opportunity to reassert our negative EM view. Over the next two weeks, our reports will focus on Chinese stimulus and ongoing structural reforms. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see WARC, "Mobile is the world's second-largest ad medium," dated November 30, 2017, available at warc.com. 2 Please see Lina M. Khan, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," The Yale Law Journal 126:710 (2017). 3 Please see Steven L. Piott, The Anti-Monopoly Persuasion (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1985). 4 Khan 718. 5 Khan 719. 6 Please see Robert H. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (New York: Free Press, 1978). 7 By Bork's broad definition of "consumer welfare," even Jeff Bezos is a consumer whose rights have to be protected by anti-trust policy. "Those who continue to buy after a monopoly is formed pay more for the same output, and that shifts income from them to the monopoly and its owners, who are also consumers. This is not dead-weight loss due to restriction of output but merely a shift in income between two classes of consumers. The consumer welfare model, which views consumers as a collectivity, does not take this income effect into account," Bork, 32, our emphasis. 8 Please see Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 342 (1979). 9 Khan 737. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The U.S. Department of Justice, "Herfindahl-Hirschman Index," available at justice.gov. 12 Please see Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell, "Amazon's Stranglehold: How the Company's Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities," Institute for Local Self-Reliance, dated November 2016, available at ilsr.org. 13 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies?" dated April 18, 2018, available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge," dated May 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31, 2018. The quant model lifted its U.S. allocation to be in line with the benchmark weight at the expense of Spain. No major changes in other country weights, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 59 bps in July, largely driven by Level 2 model which outperformed its benchmark by 146 bps. Level 1 model slightly unperformed its MSCI world benchmark by 5 bps in July. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by 132 bps, driven by the Level 2 outperformance of 375 bps offset by the 2 bps of Level 1 underperformance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Mode (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 2018. Following the developments on the trade front and increasing worries of a growth slowdown, the model continues to maintain a defensive bias with an aggregate overweight of 5.8% relative to cyclical sectors. The relative tilts within cyclicals and defensives remain the same as the previous month. However, both discretionary and financials are going through unfavorable technical and momentum indicators. Energy remains the only resource based sector with an overweight, primarily driven by attractive long-term valuations. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Feature Downside Risks Haven't Gone Away We downgraded risk assets to neutral in last month's Quarterly Portfolio Outlook,1 citing an increasing number of risks to the equity bull market. Specifically, we warned about the slowdown and desynchronization of global growth, rising U.S. inflation, further deterioration in the trade war, and the ongoing slowdown in China. Markets - particularly in the U.S. - have stabilized somewhat over the past few weeks on the expectation that these risks are not particularly grave, that global growth remains robust, and that central banks will be slow to tighten. We accept that there remain upside risks (which is why we are neutral, not underweight, equities) but think many investors remain too sanguine about the downside risks. On desynchronized growth, it is true that the slowdown in the euro zone seems to have bottomed. The Citi Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 1) suggest that downward surprises to euro zone and Japanese growth have ended, and that the U.S. is no longer surprising significantly to the upside. However, the likely path of inflation in the two regions looks very different, with U.S. core PCE inflation likely headed towards 2.5% over the next few quarters, while euro zone core inflation is stuck around 1% (Chart 2). Table 1Recommended Allocation Chart 1A Resynchronization Of Growth? Chart 2Core Inflation: Higher In The U.S. Than In The Euro Zone In particular, we think it is only a matter of time before U.S. wages start to accelerate. Unemployment has not been this low since the late 1960s. As happened then, there is typically a lag between the labor market becoming tight and inflation emerging (Chart 3). With the employment/population ratio for the key working-age demographic now back close to its 2007 level (Chart 4), and 601,000 new entrants to the labor force last month alone, that point is probably not far away. Note, too, that people switching jobs are now seeing large wage rises; those staying are not (Chart 5). With strong corporate profit growth, companies will soon start to raise wages to keep staff and fill vacancies. Chart 3Just A Matter Of Time Before Inflation Accelerates Chart 4Little Slack Left In The Labor Market Chart 5Switchers Getting Wage Rises; Stayers Not This all suggests that markets are too nonchalant about the risk of further Fed tightening. The futures market is pricing in only four rate hikes from the Fed over the next 24 months (Chart 6). We think it likely that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter until something gives. By contrast, the ECB has clearly signaled that it will wait until at least September next year before raising rates; when it does so, it may hike by only 10 basis points. The futures market is close to pricing this correctly (Chart 6, panel 2). We remain concerned about further exacerbation of the retaliatory tariff war. In late July, the European Union and President Trump seemed to agree a truce, especially with regard to auto tariffs. But, even if this proves more than transitory, it is unlikely to be repeated between the U.S. and China. Both sides have raised the stakes so much that it will be politically difficult for either to back down. Further aggressive moves are likely, including a 10% tariff on all USD500 billion of Chinese imports into the U.S, and the Chinese authorities engineering a further depreciation of the Chinese yuan, and making life difficult for U.S. companies that manufacture and sell in China (where their sales total USD350 billion). Businesses around the world have woken up to this risk: capex intentions among U.S. companies have slipped recently and, in the Global ZEW survey, future expectations are now the lowest relative to current conditions since 2007, a bearish indicator (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Is Likely To Hike more Than This Chart 7Businesses Expect Things To Get Worse Moreover, we don't see China launching a massive reflationary stimulus, as it did in 2009 and 2015. In the past few weeks, it has announced some minor easing of monetary policy, targeted tax cuts, and an acceleration of this year's fiscal spending. This will be enough to cushion the downside. But interest rates have not fallen anything like as much as in previous episodes (Chart 8). The authorities have reiterated that structural reform remains the priority. Given the significant slowdown in credit growth over the past year, we expect a further deceleration in the Chinese industrial economy (and, therefore, in imports) through the end of the year. If our macro outlook is correct, it is likely to have the following consequences for financial markets: further rises in long-term interest rates (we forecast 3.3-3.5% for the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield by early 2019), a further appreciation of the U.S. dollar (as monetary policy divergences with the euro area and Japan widen further), and negative performance for emerging market assets (hurt by higher U.S. rates, the rising USD, and the slowdown in China). This points to small negative returns from global government bonds over the next 12 months. Equities are more complicated. Earnings growth remains strong. If S&P500 companies really achieve the 20% EPS growth this year and 10% next year that analysts (and BCA's models) are forecasting, the forward multiple will fall from 16.5x now to 14.0x by end-2019. We would expect to see low single-digit positive returns from global equities over the rest of the year. We accordingly remain neutral on equities, where we can see both upside and downside risks. One key is the timing of the peak in profit margins. This has typically come a few quarters before the start of a recession. Currently margins continue to improve (Chart 9). They are likely to peak around the end of this year, when wages (and input prices, partly because of higher import tariffs) begin to rise faster than sales. We expect to move underweight equities around that time, when this and other recession indicators start to flash warning signals. Chart 8Not 2015 Redux In China Chart 9Watch For The Peak In Profit Margins Currencies: The outlook for the USD remains the key to the performance of other asset classes, particularly emerging markets and commodities. We see the risk of a short-term pullback, since long speculative positions in the dollar have recently built up (Chart 10). But differences in growth, inflation, monetary policy, and long-term rates between the U.S. and other developed economies suggest further moderate dollar appreciation over the coming 12 months. We remain very negative on EM currencies. Central banks in many emerging markets have been forced to raise rates sharply in recent weeks to defend their currencies. This is likely to slow growth over coming quarters. Those central banks that have resisted hiking (for example, Turkey and Brazil) are likely to see sharp rises in inflation. Equities: We prefer developed market equities over emerging ones. Our two overweights are the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. is a defensive market, with a beta to global equities of only 0.9 over the past 20 years. But, if there were to be a last-year equity market melt-up (along the lines of 1999), it is likely to be led by internet stocks, in which the U.S. is particularly overweight, and so the U.S. overweight also acts as a hedge against this upside risk. Our overweight in Japan is based on our view that the Bank of Japan will continue its ultra-accommodative monetary policy (bolstered by the recent tweaks to the operation of the policy), even while other DM central banks are moving towards tightening. There are also some signs of wage growth picking up, which should be positive for consumer sectors. Fixed Income: We remain underweight bonds and, within the asset class, are neutral between government bonds and spread product. U.S. junk bonds continue to have some attraction as long as economic growth remains strong (and the oil price does not fall). But junk bonds typically peak one or two quarters before equities. And, in this cycle, U.S. corporate leverage began to rise rather early, which suggests that at the start of the next recession leverage will be worryingly high (Chart 11) and that junk bonds will, therefore, perform particularly poorly. Chart 10Dollar Long Positions Building Up Again Chart 11Leverage Is High For This Stage Of The Cycle Commodities: Oil has become much harder to forecast in recent weeks, with downside risk to the price of crude coming from the recently announced OPEC production increases, but upside risk from Iran (which is threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions) and the collapse in Venezuelan production. BCA's energy strategists see Brent falling a little to average USD70 a barrel in 2H, and at USD75 on average next year, with greater risk of upside surprises than downside.2 Industrial metals prices are likely to remain under pressure if the USD appreciates and China slows further, as evidenced by significant downside moves in copper, iron ore and other metals over the past few weeks. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Review, "Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral," dated 2 July 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated 19 July 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights Without swift and considerable fiscal austerity or aggressive privatization, Brazil's public debt situation will become uncontrollable. Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. Hence, the upcoming president will not have a mandate to pursue fiscal austerity. The sole politically viable solution to stabilize Brazil's public debt situation is to boost nominal GDP growth - something that can only be achieved by sacrificing the exchange rate. The real is set to depreciate considerably. Provided the currency is key to the performance of Brazilian asset prices, the latter will remain in a bear market. Stay put/underweight on Brazilian risk assets. Feature Brazil is approaching a major showdown between creditors and the government. The country's public debt burden is out of control and unsustainable, unless immediate and drastic actions on the fiscal front are undertaken. At the same time, the economy has barely recovered after an extended period of depression, and the general population does not have the appetite for fiscal austerity. Crucially, the nation is heading into presidential and general elections in October. Whoever is elected, the new president will struggle to stabilize public debt dynamics amid a weak economy and the public's intolerance for fiscal tightening. On the surface, the plunge in Brazilian financial markets in recent months could well be attributed to the truckers' strike following the liberalization of fuel prices. The authorities hiked fuel prices because the deteriorating budget situation forced them to discontinue subsiding it. However, the strike was a symptom of a much deeper problem: the government's debt dynamics are degenerating, while the population and businesses have grown tired of the prolonged depression - and are deeply opposed to any kind of fiscal austerity. The sole macro solution to this debt problem is to boost nominal growth. This can be achieved via much lower real interest rates and/or a major currency devaluation. The latter will be detrimental to foreign investors holding Brazilian assets. Fiscal Austerity Is Required... Chart I-1Nominal Growth (A Proxy For Revenue) Is Lower Than Borrowing Costs Brazil continues to head towards a fiscal debacle. Not only does the government's fiscal position remain untenable, but nominal GDP growth has also relapsed to its 2015 lows (Chart I-1). The lack of nominal growth is depressing government revenues. Importantly, the widened gap between nominal GDP growth that currently stands at 4% and local currency borrowing rates of 10% is not sustainable (Chart I-1). Barring swift and substantial fiscal tightening, weak economic growth and high borrowing costs will ensure that the public debt-to-GDP ratio continues to rise into the foreseeable future. A rising debt-to-GDP ratio without clear government policies and actions to tackle indebtedness will feed into a higher risk premium in the exchange rate as well as government borrowing costs. Hence, a vicious cycle will likely unravel: escalating public debt will exert upward pressure on the government's borrowing costs, rising interest rate payments on public debt will keep the fiscal deficit wide and, consequently, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to escalate. Table 1 presents three scenarios for Brazil's public debt trajectory. In our base case scenario, the gross debt-to-GDP ratio1 reaches 82% by the end of 2019. In fact, even under the optimistic scenario, the gross public debt-to-to GDP ratio will continue to rise and end up at 80%. Table 1Brazil: Public Debt Sustainability Test Chart I-2High Debt Is Not A Problem In The U.S. A public debt burden above 80% of GDP would not be alarming if interest rates on that debt were not in the double digits. For example, the U.S.'s public debt burden of 100% of GDP is not a problem because interest rates are low, in fact well below nominal GDP growth (Chart I-2). To stabilize the public debt dynamics, the Brazilian government must run primary fiscal surpluses. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Brazil escaped a public debt trap because the government tightened fiscal policy considerably. They adopted Fiscal Responsibility Law in 2000, whereby the authorities were required by law to keep government expenditures limited to 50% of net revenues for that year. In turn, this allowed governments to run comfortable primary fiscal surpluses of 3% and above (Chart I-3). As shown on this chart, Brazil ran primary surpluses of 3-4% from 2001 through to 2012. Presently, the primary fiscal balance stands at -1.5% of GDP (Chart I-3, bottom panel). To stabilize the public debt dynamics, the government must undertake fiscal tightening of about 3% of GDP within the next 12-24 months to bring the primary surplus to around 1.5% of GDP. However, such fiscal tightening at a time when the economy is still very weak will push it back into recession. More importantly such fiscal tightening is politically unfeasible, as discussed below. Brazil's Achilles heel has been and remains social security finances. The social security deficit at the moment amounts to 3% of GDP (Chart I-4). According to IMF projections,2 social security expenditures will rise to 15% of GDP by 2021, bringing the total social security deficit to 12% of GDP under the current system. Chart I-3Brazilian Public Debt Dynamics Are Unsustainable Chart I-4Brazil's Social Security Deficit Crucially, Brazil is facing demographic headwinds that are contributing to the ballooning social security deficit. In particular, a rapidly aging population and rising life expectancy are all expected to drag government finances lower in the coming decades (Chart I-5). The social security deficit has increased in recent years to 40% of the overall deficit. Chart I-5Deteriorating Demographics Major and front-loaded cuts in social security expenditures are vital to stabilize government finances and debt dynamics. However, there is little support among the population and Congress for such austerity measures (we discuss this in more detail in the next section). Aggressive privatization could be a one-off short-term solution if the proceeds are used to reduce public debt. This could avert a vicious cycle of rising risk premiums, higher interest rates and larger debt burdens, at least for a while. However, the recent case of the privatization of Eletrobras shows that the process has been much slower than expected. Moreover, the total estimated sale price of Eletrobras will only produce BRL 12 billion. This compares with a BRL 104 billion annual primary deficit. Further, a sale of the Brazilian government's ownership of oil giant Petrobras would bring in an estimated BRL 90-95 billion, or 1.6% of GDP (this assumes a sale of a 64% stake in common shares, including government, BDNES and Caixa shares). This is still less than the annual primary deficit of BRL 104 billion (1.5% of GDP). Consequently, even aggressive privatization will not be sufficient to reduce debt or improve the nation's fiscal position on a sustainable basis. Further, aggressive privatization is not politically feasible as it lacks public support, and Congressional approvals on this matter will be a challenge. Bottom Line: The public debt burden is surging and fiscal dynamics remain unsustainable. Without swift and considerable fiscal austerity or aggressive privatization, Brazil's public debt situation will become uncontrollable. ...But Is Politically Unfeasible The prospects for fiscal reforms and improved public debt sustainability are dependent on the upcoming presidential elections. As October's vote approaches, social security and privatization reforms will be key determinants of the path of Brazil's risk premium for the foreseeable future. The presidential elections are scheduled for October 7 and 28 (a second round will be held if no candidate achieves an absolute majority of the vote). Uncertainty is unusually high. Yet investors need to understand the constraints that underpin the current presidential race. First, Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. According to polls conducted by Confederacao Nacional da Industria (CNI), the top five priorities of respondents are to improve health and education, and raise wages (Chart I-6). By contrast, only 3% of respondents believe that pension reform (cutting spending) should be a top government priority. Chart 6Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity This polling confirms our thesis that the median voter in Brazil remains firmly on the left of the economic policy spectrum.3 The combined support for left-leaning candidates Lula, Marina Silva and Ciro Gomes remains close to 50% (Table 2). Table 2The Left Is Ahead On the whole, fiscal austerity and privatization, as proposed by centrist and right-leaning candidates, will garner little support from the electorate. Second, Brazil's Congress is one the most fractious in the world. With over 20 political parties in Congress, the key to passing critical reforms is contingent on the ability of the president to form, maintain and reward a coalition that can muster majority votes in Congress. Crucially, reforms requiring constitutional amendments, such as the pension system, would need a supermajority of 308 out of 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, or 60% of congressmen. As the recent experience of acting president Temer shows, this will be difficult. Temer was an experienced political operator and the head of the largest party in Congress, yet even he failed to gain sufficient support to pass social security reforms, even when they were watered down and their costs back-loaded. There are low odds that any of the existing presidential candidates - all of whom have single-digit or low double-digit support rates - will be able to get enough votes to adopt meaningful social security reforms. True, the right-wing candidate, Jair Bolsonaro, has proposed aggressive privatization and spending cuts to rein in the public debt. Ultimately, only policies of this kind can reduce spending, correct the debt trajectory, stabilize the foreign exchange rate, and enable the country to avoid a vicious cycle of escalating risk premiums in financial markets. That, in turn, would give the economy some breathing room -- a buying opportunity in financial markets might emerge. However, Jair Bolsonaro faces an uphill battle in the presidential election given that the median voter is on the left. Even if elected, he is unlikely to garner support for privatization and austerity in a fractionalised Congress. Bottom Line: Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. Hence, the upcoming president will not have a mandate to pursue fiscal austerity. Monetary Policy And The Exchange Rate Given fiscal austerity is politically unviable, the other option to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio is to boost nominal GDP. Yet the nominal GDP growth rate has relapsed to 2015 lows (refer to Chart I-1 above). Even though real GDP is slowly recovering, inflation has plunged, depressing nominal growth (Chart I-7). As a result, real rates in Brazil remain very high (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This in turn has curbed the economic recovery. Low income growth and high real rates are not only impairing public sector creditworthiness, but they are also hurting the private sector's ability to service its debt. Consistently, weaker nominal GDP growth points to a renewed rise in NPLs and NPL provisions at banks (shown inverted in the chart) (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Real Rates Are Still Punishingly High In Brazil Chart I-8Banks' Bad Loans And Provisions Are Set To Rise Monetary policy in Brazil is constrained by exchange rate movements. With the exchange rate currently under selling pressure, the central bank is unlikely to reduce interest rates for now. The next government will have no option but to force the central bank to reduce nominal and real interest rates in an attempt to both boost nominal growth and decrease public debt servicing costs. The victim of this policy will be the currency: the Brazilian real will plunge. The good news for the government is that 96% of its debt is in local currency. Hence, sizable currency depreciation will not have much of an effect on the public debt burden. Table 3External Debt As Of Q4 2017 That said, companies and banks have high levels of external debt (Table 3), and they will suffer at the hands of significant currency depreciation. However, this is the most politically viable and economically feasible way to avoid a public debt fiasco. If the government's pressure on the central bank to reduce interest rates leads to a riot in financial markets and borrowing costs on government debt rise, the government may put pressure on the central bank and state-owned commercial banks to monetize public debt - i.e., purchase government bonds to bring bond yields down. In short, Brazil could institute quantitative easing to reduce and cap government bond yields. The U.S., the UK, Japan, the euro area and Sweden have all done this, and the new government in Brazil may also opt for such a solution. It might either be done in a transparent way, as central banks in the developed economies did, or it might be done in a disguised manner. Chart I-9Divergence Between Central Bank Reserves & The Real Interestingly, there are some indications the central bank is trying to err on the side of easier money, despite the latest currency depreciation. Specifically, it has in recent months been injecting more liquidity into the banking system, despite the sharp selloff in the real, as illustrated in Chart I-9. This constitutes a departure from past policy reactions to selloffs in the real, and in a way is a form of disguised easing. The central bank's recent liquidity additions have prevented interbank rates - and hence the entire structure of interest rates - from increasing more than they otherwise would have. In short, the upcoming government might resort to open or disguised public debt monetization to prevent a fiscal debacle. Needless to say, the Brazilian real will plummet in such a scenario. Bottom Line: The sole politically viable solution to stabilize Brazil's public debt situation is to boost nominal GDP growth - something that can only be achieved by sacrificing the exchange rate. Financial Markets The currency is the key to the performance of Brazilian asset prices. The real will depreciate much further. In addition to the above factors, the following will continue to weigh on the currency: Export growth is decelerating (Chart I-10), and this trend is likely to persist as China's growth slows further and commodities prices drop. The currency is not yet very cheap, according to the real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Brazilian Export Growth Is Decelerating Chart I-11The Real Is Not Cheap Foreign debt obligations - external debt servicing over the next 12 months - are elevated both in dollars and from a historical perspective relative to exports (Chart I-12). Not surprisingly, demand for dollars is very strong, as evidenced by rising U.S. dollar funding rates (Chart I-13 ). Finally, even though interest rate differentials over the U.S. have never been a key driving force behind the real, they are currently at a record low (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Foreign Private Sector Debt Is High Chart I-13Demand For U.S. Dollars Is Strong Chart I-14Brazilian Interest Rate Differentials: At A Historical Low Chart I-15Brazil: Weak Trade Balance Is Negative For Equities With respect to equities, Brazilian share prices perform poorly when the current account and trade balances are deteriorating (Chart I-15). Falling commodities prices are negative for resource companies. Finally, the stock market's long-term technical profile seems to suggest that a major top has been reached in share prices in U.S. dollar terms and the path of least resistance is down (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Brazilian Stocks In U.S. Dollars Investment Conclusions We remain negative on Brazil's financial markets. Further depreciation in the currency will continue, and will cause a selloff in equities, local bonds and sovereign and corporate credit markets. Dedicated EM portfolios should continue to underweight Brazil in equity and fixed-income portfolios. We continue recommending a long position in the nation's sovereign CDSs. The BRL is among our favoured currency shorts - we are maintaining both our short BRL/long USD and our short BRL/long MXN positions. Among equity sectors, we are reiterating our short position in bank stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthur@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com 1 In our simulations, we used gross government debt, which is calculated as total government public debt excluding central bank holdings of government securities. Gross public debt-to-GDP ratio is now at 74%. Under the older methodology, which included accounting for government debt held by the central bank, the public debt-to-GDP ratio would have been 85%. 2 Cuevas et al. IMF Working Paper; Fiscal Challenges of Population Aging in Brazil, March 2017 3 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Brazil's Election: Separating Signal From The Noise", dated September 10, 2014, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, This week I am sending you a Special Report written by Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist of the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. Mark deals with the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. He identifies the next products to be targeted with higher tariffs on both sides of the dispute. A higher U.S. tariff wall will shield some industries from competition, but rising input costs will be widely felt because of extensive supply chains between and within industries. There is only a small handful of industries that will be winners in absolute terms. I trust you will find his report very informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between the U.S. and China. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. Feature The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart 1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 Chart 1Measuring Global Supply Chains In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: 1. The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); 2. Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; 3. Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. 4. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. 5. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table 1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table 1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table 1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table 1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table 2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table 3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table 2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table 3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart 2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart 3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart 2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart 3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables 2 and 3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table 4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table 4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart 4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. Chart 4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table 5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table 5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table 5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table 4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table 4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table 6). Chart 5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Table 6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart 5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table 7Stock Of U.S. Direct Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table 7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box 1).5 BOX 1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won’t work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar’s worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table 1Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table 2Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table 3Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table 4Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Sentiment Is Taking Off Overweight (High Conviction) The S&P air freight index has been rebounding this month after being buffeted by the headwinds of a potential trade war. UPS has been the leader upwards after reporting steeply higher quarterly sales as yields have strengthened considerably amid rocketing domestic e-commerce demand. Moreover, the good news is not simply a domestic story as the exceptionally positive U.S. business conditions are matched by soaring global air freight volumes (second panel). Still, fear has reigned in a market that has ignored positive earnings reports and rising sell-side forecasts with the result that the valuation is at a two-decade low and well below both the long term average and the market multiple (third panel). Our technical indicator agrees, signaling that the S&P air freight index has entered oversold conditions. We reiterate our high conviction overweight recommendation on the air freight index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.

Bank Credit Analyst

In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights President Trump has taken the next step in the trade war by charging some of America's major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. However, we are not headed for Plaza Accord 2.0, because neither the ECB nor the PBOC will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it. Moreover, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. With the labor market showing signs of overheating, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. The worsening trade dispute is the key risk that investors face and there are growing signs that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that most risk assets will outperform bonds and other defensive sectors in the near term. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. The flattening U.S. yield curve is also worrying. We would not ignore the signal if the curve inverts, although there are reasons to believe that it is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. We wish to see corroborating evidence from our other favorite indicators before trimming risk asset exposure to underweight. A peak in the S&P 500 operating margin would be a strong sign that the end of the cycle is drawing close. Even if trade tensions soon die down and global growth holds up, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. High-quality bonds will of course outperform in the next recession, but yields are likely to rise in the meantime. We believe that U.S. Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields. We also like Agency CMBS. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. Feature We warned in last month's Overview that investors had not yet seen "peak pessimism" on the global trade front. Right on cue, President Trump raised the stakes again in July by threatening to impose tariffs on virtually all imports of Chinese goods. Congress is pushing the President to be tough on China because American voters have soured on trade. China will not easily back down with the authorities responding in kind to the U.S. President's trade threats. They have also allowed the RMB to depreciate to cushion the trade blow (Chart I-1). It is not clear whether the authorities purposely depressed the RMB or whether they simply failed to lean against market pressures. Either way, it is a dangerous approach because it has clearly raised the U.S. President's ire. Chart I-1RMB Is Much Weaker Across The Board President Trump has taken the next step in the broader trade war by charging some major trading partners with outright currency manipulation. The script appears to be following previous times that the U.S. sought trade adjustment via tariffs and currency re-alignment: the early 1970s and the 1985 Plaza Accord. Adjusting currencies on a sustained basis requires much more than simply "talking down" the dollar. There must be major changes in relative monetary and/or fiscal policies vis-à-vis U.S. trading partners. On the fiscal front, expansionary U.S. policy is working at cross purposes with the desire to have a weaker dollar and a smaller trade gap. We do not foresee the U.S. President having any success in changing the broad thrust of monetary policy either. Europe and Japan enjoyed booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and thus had the luxury of placating the U.S. by adjusting monetary policy and thereby appreciating their currencies. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that generates major bull markets in their currencies. Neither the ECB nor the People's Bank of China (PBOC) will re-orient policy until their own economic and inflation dynamics warrant it.1 It is also unlikely that the Bank of Japan will raise the 10-year yield target to either strengthen the yen or to help bank profits. This is not Plaza Accord 2.0. Powell Isn't Arthur Burns As for the Fed, we doubt the FOMC will be bullied into keeping rates lower than policymakers deem appropriate. The Fed is more open and independent today than in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if Fed Chair Powell were amenable, any hint that he is being politically manipulated to change course would result in a bond market riot that would rattle investors to their core. More likely, the Fed will stick with its current game plan and ignore President Trump's tweets. Powell could not be any clearer in his July Congressional Testimony: "With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that-for now-the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate." Investors should not be fooled by the uptick in the U.S. unemployment rate in June. The rise reflected a pop in the labor force participation rate. However, the labor force figures are volatile and there is no upward trend evident in the participation rate. The real story is that the labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. The Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers shows that wage growth is accelerating. Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which leads core CPI inflation by 18 months, has already jumped to almost 3 ½% (Chart I-2). Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on cost increases to consumers (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Inflation Is Percolating Chart I-3U.S. Pricing Power On The Rise The Minutes from the mid-June FOMC meeting included a lengthy discussion of the growing signs of inflation pressure and labor shortage. Firms are responding to the lack of qualified labor by offering training, automating, and boosting wages. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bottlenecks and other cost pressures are boiling over in the transportation sector. Despite an acute shortage of truck drivers, the average hourly earnings data do not show any acceleration in their wages (Chart I-4, second panel). However, these data do not include bonuses, which have been on the rise. The PPI for truck transportation services was up 7.7% year-over-year in June, while the Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices rose 15.9% year-over-year. The latter does not even include fuel costs. These pipeline cost pressures have implications not only for the Fed, but for corporate profit margins as well (see below). Chart I-4U.S. Transportation Is Boiling Over The U.S. Yield Curve: A Red Flag? The FOMC expects that the fed funds rate will continue to rise and will temporarily exceed its 2.9% estimate of the neutral rate. If the true neutral rate is higher than the Fed's estimate, then the FOMC could find itself hiking too slowly and the economy could severely overheat. And vice versa if the true neutral rate is below 2.9%. We are keeping a close eye on the yield curve as an indication of policy tightness. If the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would signal that the market believes that policy is turning restrictive. It is possible that the yield curve is not as good a recession signal as it has been in the past. First, there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate in the post-GFC world. The collective market wisdom on this could be wrong. Indeed, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes the case that the neutral rate is rising faster than most investors believe.2 Structural factors have depressed the neutral rate, including population aging and low productivity growth. However, these structural tailwinds for bond prices are now slowly turning into headwinds. Moreover, as Peter argues, cyclical pressures are acting to lift the neutral rate. Private credit growth is rising faster than nominal GDP growth again. The same is true for housing and equity wealth, at a time when the personal saving rate is falling. All this implies strong desired spending which, in turn, suggests a higher neutral rate of interest. It will be important to watch the housing market; if it remains healthy in the face of rate hikes, it means that the neutral rate is still north of the actual fed funds rate. Chart I-5 presents today's market expectation for the real fed funds rate, based on the forward OIS curve and the forward CPI swaps curve. Technical issues may be distorting forward rates in 2019, but we are more interested in expectations further into the future. The real fed funds rate is expected to hover in the 55-75 basis point range until 2024. It then rises to about 1%, but not until almost the end of the next decade. This appears overly complacent to us, suggesting that the risks are to the upside for market expectations of the terminal, or neutral, short-term interest rate. If the neutral rate is indeed higher than the market is currently discounting, then an inverted curve may be premature in signaling that policy is too tight and that an economic slowdown is on the horizon. Moreover, the term premium on long-term bonds may still be depressed by asset purchases by the Fed and the other major central banks, again suggesting that the curve will more easily invert than in the past. There is much disagreement on this issue, even among FOMC members and among BCA strategists. This publication is sympathetic to the work done by the Fed Staff which suggests that the term premium has been substantially depressed by quantitative easing. Chart I-6 shows the annual change in the size of G4 central bank balance sheets (inverted), along with an estimate of the term premium in the 10-year government bonds of the major countries. The chart is far from conclusive, but it is consistent with the view that QE has depressed term premia worldwide. Moreover, forward guidance and the low level of inflation since the GFC have undoubtedly dampened interest-rate volatility, which theory suggests is a key driver of the term premium. Chart I-5Policy Rate Expectations Chart I-6Depressed Term Premiums ##br##Distort Yield Curves The factors that have depressed the term premium are beginning to reverse, including G4 central bank balance sheets. Still, the premium will trend higher from a low starting point, suggesting that an inverted curve today may not necessarily signal a recession. That said, it would be wrong to completely dismiss a U.S. curve inversion, given its excellent track record. Historically, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has worked better than the 2/10 yield slope in terms of calling recessions. An inversion of the 3-month/10-year curve has successfully heralded all seven recessions in the past 50 years with one false positive signal. Nonetheless, the curve tends to be very early, inverting an average of almost 12 months before the recession. And, given the possible distortion to the term premium, we would want to see corroborating evidence before jumping to the conclusion that an inverted curve is sending a correct recession signal. For example, the U.S. and/or global Leading Economic Indicator would need to turn negative. The bottom line is that a curve inversion would not be enough on its own to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, we are not dismissing the message from the yield curve either, especially in the context of a trade war that could prematurely end the expansion. Trade War Hitting Economy? Estimates based on macro models suggest that the damage to global GDP growth from higher tariffs would be quite small. Nonetheless, these models do not incorporate the indirect, or second-round, effects of rising tariff walls. Business leaders abhor uncertainty, and will no doubt hold off on major capital expenditure plans until the trade dust settles. The uncertainty can then ripple through the economy to industries that are not directly affected by the trade action. The extensive use of global supply chains reinforces this ripple effect. Labor is not free to move between countries or between industries to facilitate shifts in production that are required by changing tariffs. Capital is more mobile, but it is still expensive to shift machinery. Some of the world's capital stock could become "stranded", raising the cost of the tariffs to the world economy. Finally, important economies-of-scale are lost when firms no longer have access to a single large global market. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, sorts out the U.S. equity sector winners and the losers from a trade war with China. Spoiler alert: there are not many winners! The bottom line is that the trade threat for the global economy and risk assets is far from trivial. The negative trade headlines have not had a meaningful economic impact so far, but there are some worrying signs. A number of indicators suggest that global growth continues to slow, including the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index, the Global ZEW sentiment index and the BCA Global Credit Impulse index (Chart I-7). The softness in these indicators predates the latest flaring of trade tensions. Nonetheless, business confidence outside the U.S. has dipped (fourth panel). Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies (production related to energy, consumer products and IT remain strong; Chart I-8). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Still Moderating... Chart I-8...In Part Due To Capital Spending None of these data are flagging a disaster, but they all support the view that uncertainty regarding the future of the world trade order is dampening animal spirits and global capital spending. Even if trade tensions soon die down, the extended nature of the U.S. economic and profit cycle make asset allocation particularly tricky. Late Cycle Investing Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods. Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment). This month we look at asset class returns during late cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart I-9). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM manufacturing index. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table I-1 presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the following recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in the margin to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart I-9Margin Peak Signals Very Late Cycle Table I-1Late-Cycle Asset Returns We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cases the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a six month horizon. Similar to Treasurys, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasurys after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative absolute returns after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but relative performance was mixed after margins peaked. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value stocks before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend Aristocrats performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recessions on average, but the performance was not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge Funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns were a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured Product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns were attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during one of the recessions. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The historical return analysis underscores that it is dangerous to remain aggressively positioned late in an economic cycle because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears prudent. Based on this approach, investors should generally remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investors should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak. For fixed income, investors should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. There are some assets other than government bonds that generated a positive average return late in the cycle and during the recession periods, suggesting that they are good late-cycle assets to hold. However, this is misleading because in some cases they experienced a significant correction either during or slightly before the recession (see the maximum drawdown columns in Table I-1; blank cells indicate that the asset did not experience a correction). These include IG credit, CMBS, ABS, Gold and Dividend Aristocrats. The only assets in our list that provided both a positive return across all the phases in Table I-1 and avoided a correction during the recessions, were mortgage-backed securities, Timberland and Farmland. A Special Report from BCA's Global Asset Allocation service found that Timberland is a superior inflation hedge to Farmland, but the latter is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets.3 We believe that Agency MBS are unattractively valued, but should remain insulated from negative shocks such as a trade war or higher Treasury yields (as long as the Treasury selloff is not extreme). Our fixed income team also likes Agency CMBS.4 When Will U.S. Margins Peak? It is impressive that S&P 500 after-tax operating margins are extremely elevated and still rising. The trend has been aided by tax cuts, but corporate pricing power has improved and wage growth has not yet accelerated enough to damage margins. Chart I-10 presents some indicators to monitor as we await the cyclical peak in profit margins. These are generally not leading indicators, but they do provide some warning when they roll over late in the cycle. The first is the BCA Margin Proxy, which is the ratio of selling prices for the non-financial corporate sector to unit labor costs. Margins have tended to fall historically when the growth rate of this ratio is below zero. The same is true for nominal GDP growth minus aggregate wages. The aggregate wage bill incorporates both changes in wages/hour and in total hours worked. We are also watching a diffusion index of the changes in margins for the industrial components of the S&P 500, as well as BCA's Corporate Pricing Power indicator. The latter takes into consideration price changes at the detailed industry level. Chart I-10U.S. Profit Margin Indicators To Watch None of these indicators are signaling an imminent top in margins, but all appear to have peaked except the Corporate Pricing Power indicator. An equally-weighted average of these four indicators, labelled the U.S. Composite Margin Indicator in Chart I-10, is falling but is still above the zero line. We would not be surprised to see S&P 500 margins peak for the cycle late early in 2019. Conclusions: The S&P 500 has so far been largely immune to shocking trade headlines with the help of a solid start to the U.S. Q2 earning season. Based on previous late cycle periods, the fact that S&P 500 profit margins are still rising suggests that investors should remain fully-exposed to most risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market. These risks include a possible hard economic landing in China, crises in one or more EM countries, and an escalation in the trade war among others. Some investors appear to believe that the U.S. can "win" the trade war, but there are no winners when tariff walls are rising. We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. This includes equities, corporate bonds, EM assets and other risky sectors. An inversion of the yield curve could trigger a shift to underweight, although this signal would have to be corroborated by our other favorite U.S. and global indicators. Attractive late-cycle assets to hold include structured product, Timberland and Farmland. The first statements by Jay Powell as FOMC Chair underscored that it is too early to hide in Treasurys. Market expectations for real short-term interest rates are overly benign out to the middle of the next decade. Moreover, the Fed is not in a position to be proactive in leaning against the negative impact of rising tariffs because inflation is near target and the labor market is showing signs of overheating. This means that bond yields are headed higher until economic pain is clearly evident. Keep duration short of benchmark. Long-term rate expectations for the Eurozone appear even more complacent than they do for the U.S. The real ECB policy rate is expected to remain in negative territory until 2028 (Chart I-5)! At some point there will be a convergence of real rate expectations with the U.S., which will boost the value of the euro. Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to position for rate convergence. Core inflation is still well below target and Eurozone economic growth has softened recently, suggesting that the ECB will be in no hurry to lift rates once asset purchases have ended. ECB policymakers will be disinclined to cater to President's Trump's desire for tighter monetary policy in Europe, which means that the U.S. dollar has more upside versus the euro and in broad trade-weighted terms. An escalation in the trade war would augment upward pressure on the greenback. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. Emerging market assets are particularly vulnerable to another upleg in the dollar because of the high level of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. Favor DM to EM equity markets and currencies. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 26, 2018 Next Report: August 30, 2018 1 For more information on why a replay of the 1985 Plaza Accord is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Housing Will Drive the Global Business Cycle...Again," dated July 6, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Service Special Report "U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer," dated October 24, 2017, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem," dated July 17, 2018, available on usbs.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity-related indicators flashed caution again in July, despite robust U.S. corporate earnings indicators. Forward earnings estimates continued to surge in July. The net revisions ratio and the earnings surprises index remained well above average, suggesting that forward earnings still have upside potential in the coming months. However, several of our indicators suggest that it is getting late in the bull market. Our Monetary Indicator is approaching very low levels by historical standards. Equities are still close to our threshold of overvaluation, at a time when our Composite Technical Indicator appears poised to break down. An overvalued reading is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Equity sentiment is close to neutral according to our composite indicator, but the low level of implied volatility suggests that investors are somewhat complacent. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator has fallen significantly this year, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a ‘sell’ signal in July. The RPI 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. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. This month’s Overview section discusses the upside potential for the term premium in the yield curve and for market expectations of the terminal fed funds rate. This year’s dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but we still believe it has some upside while market expectations for the terminal fed funds rate adjust upward. 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 FTSE100 = Overweight global Oil and Gas in pounds. Eurostoxx50 = Overweight global Banks in euros. Nikkei225 = Overweight global Industrials in yen. S&P500 = Overweight global Technology in dollars. Of these four sector and four currency components, we have more conviction right now on the four sectors than on the four currencies. Through the summer, our preferred ranking of the four sectors is: Technology, Banks and Industrials (tied), Oil and Gas. Which necessarily means that our preferred ranking of the major equity markets is: S&P500, Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 (tied), FTSE100. Chart I-1FTSE100 Vs. S&P500 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Feature Many investors cling to the notion that the relative performance of equity markets hinges on the relative economic performance of their regions of domicile. This might have been true thirty or forty years ago when the companies that dominated the mainstream indexes had an outsize exposure to the local economy. But those days are long gone. Today, the leading companies in the mainstream equity indexes are multinationals, whose sales and profits depend on the fortunes of the global economy rather than on the local economy. Equity Market Allocation Is All About Sectors And Currencies Let's face it, BP is not really a U.K. company, it is a global company which happens to be headquartered and listed in the U.K. Likewise, Apple is not really a U.S. company, it is a global company headquartered and listed in the U.S. And so on for the vast majority of mainstream index constituents. However, BP is most certainly an oil and gas company which moves in lockstep with the global energy sector; and Apple is most certainly a technology company which moves with the global tech sector. Hence, by far the most important performance differentiator for any mainstream equity index is the sector fingerprint that distinguishes the equity index from its peers. The sector fingerprints for the four major equity markets are: overweight oil and gas for the FTSE100, overweight banks for the Eurostoxx50, overweight industrials for the Nikkei225, and overweight technology for the S&P500 (Table I-1). Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of The Four Major Equity Markets To complete the story, there is another matter to consider: the currency. A multinational oil company like BP receives its revenues and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, there is a mismatch between BP's global business, denominated in multiple currencies, and the BP stock price, denominated in just one currency: the pound. The upshot is that if the pound strengthens, and all else is equal, the company's multi-currency profits will translate into fewer pounds and drag down the stock price. Conversely, if the pound weakens, the multi-currency profits will translate into more pounds and boost the BP stock price. Therefore, the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market is the currency channel, but in a counterintuitive way: a strong economy tends to lift the currency and hinder the local stock market; a weak economy tends to depress the currency and help the local stock market. Combining the sector and currency drivers of equity market selection, we can summarize: FTSE100 = Overweight global Oil and Gas in pounds. Eurostoxx50 = Overweight global Banks in euros. Nikkei225 = Overweight global Industrials in yen. S&P500 = Overweight global Technology in dollars. The Proof Charts I-1 - I-6 show all six permutations of relative performances taken from the S&P500, Eurostoxx50, Nikkei225 and FTSE100 over the last decade. These charts should leave you in no doubt that the sector plus currency effect is all that you need to get right to allocate between these four major indexes. Chart I-2FTSE100 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds ##br##Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-3FTSE100 Vs. Eurostoxx50 = Global Oil And Gas In Pounds ##br##Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-4Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Global Banks In Euros ##br##Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-5Eurostoxx50 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Banks In Euros ##br##Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-6S&P500 Vs. Nikkei225 = Global Tech In Dollars ##br##Vs. Global Industrials In Yen More recently also, the ranking of the four equity markets has tracked the ranking of the four 'fingerprint' sectors denominated in the respective currency. For example, at the end of May when oil and gas was briefly the top performing global sector this year, the FTSE100 was briefly the top performing major index. But both oil and gas and the FTSE100 have subsequently lost their leadership (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Ranking Of The Four Major Sectors... Chart I-8... Explains The Ranking Of The Four Major Equity Markets One important implication of sectors and currencies driving stock market allocation is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is a meaningless exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, oil and gas and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Likewise, if investors anticipate the pound to ultimately strengthen - because they see that the pound is structurally cheap today - they might downgrade BP's multi-currency profit growth expectations in pound terms and trade the stock at an apparent discount. But allowing for the anticipated decline in other currencies versus the pound there is no discount. It follows that any multinational listed in Europe will give a false impression of cheapness if investors see European currencies as structurally undervalued. Another implication is that simple 'value' indexes may not actually offer value! In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem is that the whole concept of standard deviation assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations are 'non-stationary': they undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange. The Eight Components Of Equity Market Allocation So how to allocate right now? First, break down the allocation decision into its eight components comprising the four sectors: oil and gas, banks, industrials and technology, plus the four currencies: pound, euro, yen and dollar. Then focus on where you have the highest conviction views among these eight components. Through the summer, we have more conviction on the four sectors than on the four currencies. Classically growth-sensitive sectors are closely tracking the downswing in the global 6-month credit impulse which started early this year. Such mini-downswings consistently last around eight months which suggests that our successful underweight stance to the classical cyclicals remains appropriate through the summer (Chart I-9). Of the four sectors, this implies a relative preference for technology, which is the least sensitive to a global mini-downswing. But how to rank the remaining three cyclical sectors - banks, industrials and oil and gas? Since April there has been a very unusual directional divergence between the oil and gas sector which has rallied while banks and industrials have sold off (Chart I-10). Chart I-9The Underperformance Of Cyclicals ##br##Is Closely Tracking The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Chart I-10Oil And Gas Has Diverged From Banks And Industrials The proximate cause is that oil's supply dynamics, rather than demand dynamics, are dominating its price action. Ultimately though, a higher price based on supply constraints without stronger demand is precarious - because the higher price threatens demand destruction. On the other hand, if global economic demand does reaccelerate, it is the beaten-down industrials and bank equity prices that have the catch-up potential. On this basis, our preferred ranking of the four sectors through the summer is: Technology Banks and Industrials (tied) Oil and Gas Which necessarily means that our ranking of the major equity markets is: S&P500 Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 (tied) FTSE100 A final point: you might have slightly (or very) different views on the four sectors and the four currencies. That's fine. But whatever those views are, plug them into the sector and currency based approach described in this report, as this is the right - and most successful - way to allocate among the major equity markets. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week, but we have six open positions. 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-11 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 Interest Rate