Sectors

Highlights The ECB can talk down the euro, but not by much. The central bank has previously expressed comfort with EUR/USD at 1.15. The cyclical and structural direction of EUR/USD is higher... ...because the euro area versus U.S. long bond yield spread should ultimately compress to -40 bps from today's -130 bps. Remain neutral in Germany's DAX and underweight Sweden's OMX. Equity markets with a strong base currency and a large exposure to exporters will come under pressure. Overweight German consumer services equities versus German exporters and the DAX. Underweight U.K. consumer services equities versus the FTSE100. Feature When mariners know that a sea-change is coming, their concern is not whether it comes today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. The big issue is the sea-change itself - because it brings major implications for navigating the seas. In the same way, when currency markets know that a sea-change in monetary policy is coming, their concern is not whether the policy announcement comes on September 7, October 26 or December 141 - or indeed whether the sea-change will happen suddenly or gradually. At a sea-change, currency markets look much further ahead. Just as for mariners, the big issue is the sea-change itself. EUR/USD is now moving in lockstep with the expected differential between euro area and U.S. policy interest rates not next year, nor the year after next, but rather the differential five years out (Chart I-2). Chart I-1AA Strong Euro Is Good For ##br##German Consumer Services... Chart I-1B...A Weak Pound Is Bad For##br## U.K. Consumer Services Chart I-2EUR/USD Is Moving In Line With The Interest ##br##Rate Differential Expected In 2022 The ECB Can Talk Down The Euro, But Not By Much Chart I-3EUR/USD Might Find Support At 1.15 Therefore, if the ECB really wants to unwind the euro's sharp appreciation this year, the central bank must tell the market that the expectation for a sea-change is completely wrong. In other words, the ECB must indicate that it has no intention to dial back its emergency monetary accommodation. Such a volte-face is unlikely, for two reasons. First, the ECB likes to adjust market expectations incrementally rather than violently. The last policy meeting made the case "for proceeding gradually and prudently when approaching adjustments in the monetary policy stance and communication." Second, not to dial-back its emergency monetary accommodation flies in the face of a euro area economic expansion that is solid, broad, and among the strongest and best-established among major developed economies. "Postponing an adjustment for too long could give rise to a misalignment between the Governing Council's communication and its assessment of the state of the economy, which could (eventually) trigger more pronounced volatility in financial markets." Nevertheless, at the margin, dovish words from Draghi could pare back the euro. How much? Consider that at the last policy meeting EUR/USD stood at 1.15 and the ECB justified this level on the basis of the improved "relative fundamentals in the euro area vis-à-vis the rest of the world." (Chart I-3) Given that these relative fundamentals are still intact, 1.15 might provide a level of support in a technical retracement. Of course, EUR/USD also depends on the Federal Reserve and expectations for its policy rate five years out. EUR/USD would sink if the market became much more hawkish about where it sees the U.S. 'terminal' interest rate. However, for the terminal rate expectation to rise suddenly and sharply in the U.S. relative to the euro area would also fly in the face of the economic data on both sides of the Atlantic. Recently, there has been little difference in either economic growth or inflation rates. The 'Neutral' Real Interest Rates In The Euro Area And U.S. Are The Same More fundamentally, there is little difference in the so-called 'neutral' (or mid-cycle) real interest rates in the euro area and the U.S. Through the 19 years of the euro's life, the euro area versus U.S. long bond yield spread has averaged -40 bps2 (Chart I-4). Over this same period, the euro area versus U.S. annual inflation differential has also averaged -40 bps (Chart I-5). Ergo, the real interest rate differential has averaged zero. Meaning, the neutral real interest rates in the euro area and the U.S. have been exactly the same. Chart I-4Euro-U.S.: Average Interest ##br##Differential = -40bps Chart I-5Euro Area-U.S.: ##br##Inflation Differential = -40bps Bear in mind that the 19 year life of the euro captures multiple manias and crises, some centred in Europe, some in the U.S. Hence, 1999-2017 is a good representation of what the future holds, at least in relative terms if not in absolute terms. With little difference in the neutral real rates over the past two decades, is there any reason to expect a big difference in the future? Our starting assumption has to be no. Chart I-6If Composition Differences Were Removed, ##br##Euro Area And U.S. Inflation Would Be Near-Identical In fact, even the -40 bps annual inflation shortfall in the euro area is due to a compositional difference in the consumer price baskets. The euro area does not include owner occupied housing costs, whereas the U.S. does at a hefty weighting.3 If this compositional difference were removed, inflation would also be near-identical (Chart I-6). Still, each central bank must target inflation as it is defined in its respective jurisdiction, so let's assume the annual inflation differential continues to average -40 bps. In this case, the long bond yield spread should also ultimately compress to -40 bps from today's -130 bps. The biggest risk to this view is if the existential threat to the euro resurfaced. Looking at the political calendar, the German Federal Election on September 24 poses no such threat. Meanwhile, ahead of the Italian general election to be held no later than May 20 2018, even the non-establishment Five Star Movement and Northern League are toning down their anti-euro rhetoric. As my colleague Marko Papic, our Chief Geopolitical Strategist, puts it: "euro area politics are a red herring." On this basis, our central expectation is that the euro area versus U.S. yield spread has the scope to compress much further from its current -130 bps. This means that after a possible near-term retracement, we expect the cyclical and the structural rally in the euro to resume. German Consumers Are Winners, U.K. Consumers Are Losers When European currencies strengthen, the big winners are European consumers because they become richer in terms of the goods and services they can buy in international markets. This is significant because Europe imports its food and energy in large (and inelastic) volumes. Hence, their price decline in local currency terms significantly boosts the real spending power of consumers. And vice-versa (Chart I-7). As if to prove the point, German consumer services equities have rallied strongly this year (Chart I-8). And their outperformance has closely tracked euro strength (Chart of the Week, left panel). Across the English Channel, it is the mirror-image story. The pound has slumped. And the big losers are U.K. consumers, whose real spending power is evaporating as food and energy prices - in pound terms - rise. Again, to prove the point, U.K. consumer services equities have struggled to make any headway this year (Chart I-9). And their underperformance has closely tracked the trade-weighted pound's weakness (Chart of the Week, right panel). Chart I-7German Consumption Accelerating,##br## U.K. Consumption Decelerating Chart I-8German Consumer Services ##br##Have Rallied Chart I-9U.K. Consumer Services ##br##Have Struggled If the euro has more cyclical and structural upside - as we anticipate - then these equity performance trends have further to run. Chart I-10The Exporter Heavy DAX And##br## OMX Have Struggled Remain overweight German consumer services equities versus German exporters and the DAX. And remain underweight U.K. consumer services equities versus the FTSE100. At the same time, equity markets with a strong base currency and a large exposure to exporters will come under pressure. Mostly, this is because the translation of multi-currency international earnings into a strengthening base currency hurts index profits. For the time being, this influences our allocation to Germany's DAX - in which we have been neutral relative to the Eurostoxx600 - and Sweden's OMX - in which we have been underweight (Chart I-10). Next week, we will update our overall European country allocation. Given the large sector skews in European equity indexes, this country allocation is heavily dependent on the stance towards Healthcare and Banks. Hence, we await any incremental communication from the ECB. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 These are the dates of the ECB's three remaining monetary policy meetings in 2017. 2 Calculated from the over 10-year government bond yield: euro area average, weighted by sovereign issue size, less U.S. 3 The imputed cost of owner occupied housing (owners' equivalent rent of residences) comprises 25% of the U.S. consumer price basket but 0% of the euro area consumer price basket. Fractal Trading Model Basic materials equities are technically overbought. Initiate a short position relative to the broad market with a profit target / stop loss at 2.5%. In other trades, long Mediaset Espana / short IBEX35 hit its 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-11 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

Feature Healthy consumer spending driving a booming sales environment, along with the operating leverage that high revenue growth produces, have been the key underpinnings of the nascent revival in the S&P 500 margin expansion. This has occurred against the backdrop of muted wage growth in most sectors which has amplified margin expansion. We recently showed that S&P 500 operating leverage has historically added $1.4 of earnings for every $1 of incremental revenues (please see our Weekly Report of April 17, 2017 for more details). On a trailing 12-month basis, the S&P 500 has added more than $3 of earnings for every $1 of incremental revenues, more than double the historical average operating leverage. Clearly this pace of margin expansion is unsustainable, particularly since the tight labor market seems likely to force a reacceleration in wage growth. A common narrative among investors has been that late-cycle dynamics will soon force a mean reversion in S&P 500 operating margins. However, and while every economic cycle is different, true mean reversion only happens in recessions (Chart 1). Chart 1Margins Can Expand From Here Further, the absolute margin level of the S&P 500 is far from being without precedent. Since the 1970's, margins have typically peaked for the cycle only after approaching one standard deviation above the trend and the current S&P500 margin is just past halfway there. It is also worth noting that margins can stay extended for a considerable time; margins have surpassed one standard deviation above trend twice this decade without a material retrenchment. Chart 2 shows the high, low and current trailing operating margins of the S&P 500 and the eleven GICS1 sectors. At first glance, it appears that margins are particularly high in the heavyweight financials and IT sectors. Some context is required; both sectors experienced bubbles in the last two decades that saw operating profits plumb extreme lows in the subsequent busts, making their profit ranges appear unusually broad. Chart 3 corrects to exclude two-standard deviation events for all sectors. The message is clear: margins still have significant room to run. Chart 2High, Low And Current Trailing S&P 500 Operating Margins Chart 3High, Low And Current Trailing S&P 500 Operating Margins, Normalized Operating margins in isolation only tell part of the story. In Chart 4, we compare profitability to the capital deployed in pursuit of said profits. Capital deployed and its earned return should theoretically plot on a linear function; plotting above the fitted regression line implies insufficient returns, while plotting below the line indicates excess returns. In our analysis, most sectors plot relatively closely to the market line with a few notable outliers. Financials are likely earning significant excess returns on capital, while utilities are waving a warning flag. We reiterate our overweight and underweight ratings on these two sectors, respectively (Chart 4). Chart 4Capital Intensity Of Profits The upshot of high margins and low capital requirements is above-average return on capital. Consequently, rising valuation multiples move in tandem with ROIC and vice-versa. Our analysis bears that out; financials are relatively far along the continuum along which most of the S&P 500 sectors plot, though still modestly below the fitted regression line indicating fair value. Conversely, real estate, while attractive from a return on capital perspective, is highly overvalued (Chart 5). Chart 5Margin Efficiency And Valuation This Special Report takes a sector-by-sector view on the margin outlook that supports our thesis of ongoing margin gains delivering an earnings-driven stock market rally. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com Chart 6Oil Stocks Look Set To Decline Chart 7Capital Formation Should Take Off Chart 8Consumers Have Opened Their Wallets Chart 9Surging Global Manufacturing Chart 10Real Estate Rents Look##br## Set To Decline Chart 11The Right Conditions For Industrial##br## Margin Expansion Chart 12Dark Clouds On The Horizon ##br##For Health Care Margins Chart 13Utilities Margins Are##br## Likely To Contract S&P Energy (Overweight) Chart 14S&P Energy Energy operating profit margins have been on a wild ride, collapsing with the underlying commodity and then partially recovering as the industry rationalized. Analysts are forecasting more of the same, with the industry forecast to generate profits for the first time in more than two years. Pricing power has spiked higher, though from an extremely low base, as the aforementioned industry rationalization has taken hold. Wage growth looks fairly tepid and the net margin impact supports the forecast view of margin expansion. Rampant cost inflation appears to be a thing of the past. Accordingly, the essential component for margin recovery will be top line growth. The key factors in a top-line growth scenario for the energy sector will be a demand-driven recovery in crude oil prices, supported by continued supply-side discipline. The current global economic revival and pause in the U.S. dollar bull market are catalysts for the former while OPEC 2.0 supply cuts (with effective compliance) and lower crude supply are catalysts for the latter. Encouragingly, the rig count remains well below peak levels, Cushing crude oil inventories are contracting on a year-over-year basis and OECD oil stocks appear poised to contract in late autumn/early winter (Chart 6). Net, we are constructive on energy sector margins (Chart 14). S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 15S&P Financials Margins, though below historic peak levels, have improved dramatically. The stock market has not rewarded the sector for the solid performance, making financials a standout sector where earnings have led prices higher, rather than multiple expansion. A healthy consumer, housing market and corporate sector should lead to strong capital formation which, in turn, implies improving revenue growth for financials. This is captured by our loans & leases model which points to the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years (Chart 7) Banks in particular benefit from a healthy economy as very low unemployment should be accompanied by solid loan quality which makes the industry's margin gains more durable (Chart 7). We expect banks, as the largest segment of the financials sector, to lead the index higher. Pricing power and wage growth have recently been diverging with the former moving steeply positive and the latter falling to the slowest growth of the past 5 years. These moves bode well for future margin expansion; analysts agree, with forecasts pointing to margins approaching twenty-year highs (Chart 15). S&P Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) Chart 16S&P Consumer Discretionary Consumer discretionary margins have inflated dramatically and, despite a moderation in actual and forecast profitability, they remain more than one standard deviation above normal. Wage growth is declining from fairly eye-watering levels but still remains faster than the muted sector pricing power. The net of these points is falling margins, in line with analyst forecasts. Spending has recently poked higher as a much improved household balance sheet and wage growth have made the consumer feel flush enough to start spending some of their accumulated savings of the past few years (Chart 8). This resurgence in demand should mean, barring any external shock, that pricing power will recover, though a tight labor market could present a considerable offset via above-normal wage growth. Within the index, margin strength is particularly notable in Home Improvement Retail and Cable & Satellite; both are benefitting from the themes noted above and have seen revenue growth driving wider margins. The Auto Components index is a rare underperformer with margins shrinking as the companies adjust to slowing North American light vehicle production. Net, we remain positive on consumer discretionary profit growth (Chart 16). S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 17S&P Consumer Staples Consumer staples margins have seen a general upward trajectory over the past three years, though have recently rolled over. The key culprits have been food & drug deflation with retail struggling to maintain profits. Forecasts are pointing to a resumption of the upward margin trend, in line with our improving proxy measure (Chart 17, bottom panel). Eventually staples will regain some share of the consumer's wallet. The wage bill is moving in the right direction and even a modest uptick in sector pricing power could trigger margin expansion. It is worth noting that consumer staples is our only remaining overweight defensive index as we have drifted toward cyclical sectors with our increasingly bullish stance over the course of the year. Still, we remain confident of a modest sector margin recovery, though expect consumer discretionary to have a better profit growth profile. S&P Telecommunication Services (Neutral) Chart 18S&P Telecom Services S&P telecom services is at the very bottom of the GICS1 sector EPS growth table this year despite easy comparable quarters in 2016; this is reflected in the index's steady downward drift (Chart 18, top panel). Still, margins have started staging a recovery and the sell-side appears reasonably optimistic. The issue is pricing, the weakness of which is taking profits down regardless of margin resilience. Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely and recent anecdotal evidence from earnings calls suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, though our margin proxy is weighed down by still-falling pricing power (Chart 18, bottom panel). S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 19S&P Materials Margins in the S&P materials index have recovered sharply from their recent lows, with analysts forecasting continued margin expansion. Said margin expansion will be dependent on the industry holding on to the pricing power gains it has made over the past year; we think odds are good this can happen. A global manufacturing rebound appears to be underway; the global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high (Chart 9). Further, it looks likely that a coordinated central bank tightening cycle has begun which should make U.S. exports relatively more attractive, even if the greenback moves laterally from current levels. With respect to chemicals, the dominant materials component industry, a wave of global mergers (Chart 9) should limit price competition while also stripping out some overcapacity which has been a perennial margin overhang. As well, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better as U.S. chemical production has troughed and utilization rates have improved (Chart 9). Still, inventories have surged in advance of the manufacturing recovery (not shown) and any demand misstep could have serious margin implications. Our materials margin proxy points to modest margin gains (Chart 19). S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Chart 20S&P Real Estate The S&P Real Estate index comprises mostly REITs and does not compare well to the other sectors on an operating margin basis, owing to the vastly different business model. Still, a discussion of drivers of both revenues and costs is worthwhile. Real estate occupancy rates have crested and generationally high supply additions in the apartment space are all but certain to push vacancies higher still (Chart 10). The implication is that rental inflation will remain under intense downward pressure, as has been the case since the beginning of 2016. Worrisomely, credit quality in select commercial real estate (CRE) segments is deteriorating at the margin (Chart 10). Should the trend worsen, REIT margins will deteriorate. According to a recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey, bankers are less willing to extend CRE credit. In fact, if one excludes the GFC spike, the tightening in CRE lending standards is near the two previous recessionary highs (Chart 10 on page 8). If banks continue to close the credit taps, CRE prices will suffer a setback. Nevertheless, the tight labor market and accelerating industrial production should keep the appetite for CRE upbeat and prices may have a bit more room to run before reaching a cyclical peak (Chart 20). S&P Industrials (Neutral) Chart 21S&P Industrials A demand revival, both domestic and globally, has helped drive a recovery of S&P industrials margins from the mini manufacturing recession of 2015/early-2016. The U.S. dollar bull market has paused (Chart 11), global demand and credit growth has recovered (Chart 11) and domestic optimism abounds (Chart 11); all the conditions look supportive of the consistent margin profile forecast by the sell-side. However, the margin expansion thesis is not without risk; pricing power gains appear to have rolled over while the wage bill, the weakness of which was a significant margin driver, has spiked. The result is that our industrials margin proxy has eased, though we discount the measure as it has not correlated well with observed margins. Still, if demand continues to remain upbeat, the operating leverage impact on the relatively high fixed cost sector should offset labor cost spikes. Net, we expect margins to drift mostly sideways (Chart 21). S&P Health Care (Underweight) Chart 22S&P Health Care S&P health care margins are showing warning signs of a potential retreat. Pricing power has worsened significantly since recent highs in 2016 which could warn of a top line contraction, particularly in the context of drug price inflation. Chart 12 shows that since 2005 drug prices have nearly doubled and the slope has actually steepened since 2011. Health care spending in the U.S. comprises over 17% of GDP, the highest in the world, but it has likely plateaued. Real health care spending is decelerating in absolute terms, and had been contracting compared with overall PCE earlier this year (Chart 12). This suggests that selling price blues are demand driven and will likely continue to weigh on health care profits. Not only are selling prices softening, but also the health care sector wage bill is on fire, pushing multi-year highs. Taken together, operating margins will continue to compress, sustaining the recent down drift. Should margins worsen as we expect, the recent updraft in the index price should follow earnings downward (Chart 22). S&P Utilities (Underweight) Chart 23S&P Utilities In earlier sections of this report, we have discussed the beneficiaries of growing ebullience in global economic expectations; utilities are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of CBs are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that fixed income proxies, utilities among them, will continue to suffer. From a profit perspective, our margin proxy is pointing to a pricing driven recovery. However, contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty (Chart 13). Tack on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place (Chart 13). Importantly, industry utilization rates are probing multi-decade lows and overcapacity is negative for pricing power. Chart 13 confirms that utilities construction is relentless at a time when turbine and generator inventories have been hitting all-time highs. This is a deflationary backdrop, and suggests that sell-side analyst optimism is wrong footed. Net, we think margin weakness should persist (Chart 23). S&P Information Technology (Underweight) Chart 24S&P Information Technology Margins in the S&P information technology index are pushing their 20-year highs. However, the sector is a story of leaders and laggards. The technology hardware, storage & peripherals sub-index (almost entirely AAPL), for example, has seen their operating margin roughly double in the past ten years. Conversely, communications equipment is in the midst of a collapse in pricing power as intense competition has engulfed telcos (their principal customer group) and the uncertainty in the federal government has held back outlays. Our margin proxy is pointing to a modest margin contraction, a result of slipping sector pricing power partially offset by a flat to slightly negative sector wage bill. This stands in contrast to sell-side forecasts who expect margins to hit record levels in the next year. We view the sell-side as overly sanguine with respect to margins and expect pricing power to weigh in coming months (Chart 24).

Special Report

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

Neutral When we upgraded the unloved telecom services index to neutral last month, we noted that a point would eventually be reached when selling prices would no longer contract. Yesterday's personal consumption expenditure data indicates the inflection point may have been reached as U.S. consumer spending on telecom services has surged faster than at any point in the past decade (second panel). Positive consumption data is not yet reflected in EPS growth estimates, where the telecom services index remains the GICS 1 industry laggard of the S&P 500 (third panel). Nor is it reflected in industry valuation multiples, which look to have bottomed on very weak earnings (bottom panel). It is too early to for us assess the durability of the growth in consumer telecom outlays and hence to become more constructive on telecom earnings growth relative to the S&P500. However, we are gaining confidence at least that the slide has been arrested. We reiterate our neutral call. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, LVLT, CTL.

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 30th, 2017. The model has continued to reduce its allocation to the U.S. driven by worsening liquidity condition, and it's the second consecutive month that the U.S. allocation is the largest underweight. Australia is downgraded to neutral on concern of valuation. Germany and Netherland continued to receive more allocation and Canada's underweight is reduced as well, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 18 bps in August, entirely due to the 43 bps outperformance of Level 2 model where the overweight in Italy and Germany versus the underweight in Japan, Spain and Canada worked very well. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. 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 Model (Chart 4) is updated as of August 30, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model is optimistic on global growth and maintains in cyclical tilt. However, the magnitude of overweight in cyclical sectors has reduced on the back of momentum indicators. The biggest change has been utilities which has moved from a 2% underweight to a 1.7% overweight. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Financial markets have slipped into a 'risk off' phase. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events. Equity bear markets are usually associated with recessions. On that score, we do not see any warning signs of an economic downturn. However, geopolitical risks are rising at a time when valuation measures suggest that risk assets are vulnerable. We do not see the debt ceiling or the failure of movement on U.S. tax reform as posing large risks for financial markets. However, trade protectionism and, especially, North Korea are major wildcards. We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. BCA Strategists debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. On a positive note, we have upgraded our EPS growth forecasts, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The Fed faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment in 1999. Policymakers acted pre-emptively and began to tighten before inflation turned up. This time, the FOMC will want to see at least a small increase in inflation just to be sure. Wages may be a lagging indicator for inflation in this cycle. Watch a handful of other indicators we identify that led inflection points in inflation in previous long economic expansions. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook, which has led to very lopsided rate expectations. Keep duration short. Feature Chart I-1Trump Popularity Headwind For Tax Reform A 'risk off' flavor swept over financial markets in August. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events, from President Trump's Charlottesville controversy to the never-ending staff changes in the White House to North Korean tensions to the Texas flood and the terror attack in Spain. Trump's popularity rating is steadily declining, even now among Republican voters (Chart I-1). This has raised concerns that none of his business-friendly policies, tax cuts or initiatives to boost growth will be successfully enacted. It is even possible that the debt ceiling will be used as a bargaining chip among the various Republican factions. The political risks are multiplying at a time when the equity and corporate bond markets are pricey. Valuation measures do not help with timing, but they do inform on the potential downside risk if things head south. At the moment, we do not see any single risk as justifying a full retreat into safe havens and a cut in risk asset allocation to neutral or below. Nonetheless, there is certainly a case to be cautious and hold some traditional safe haven assets. Timing The Next Equity Bear Market It is rare to have an equity bear market without a recession in the U.S. There have been plenty of market setbacks that did not quite meet the 20% bear-market threshold, but were nonetheless painful even in the absence of recession (Black Monday, LTCM crisis, U.S. debt ceiling showdown and euro crises). Unfortunately, these corrections are very difficult to predict. At least with recessions, investors have a fighting chance in timing the exit from risk exposure. The slope of the yield curve and the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) are classic recession indicators, and for good reason (Chart I-2). Over the past 50 years they have both successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. We can eliminate the false positive signals by combining the two indicators and follow a rule that both must be in the red to herald a recession.1 Chart I-2The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well It will be almost impossible for the yield curve to invert until the fed funds rate is significantly higher than it is today. Thus, it may be the case that a negative reading on the LEI, together with a flattening (but not yet inverted) yield curve, will be a powerful signal that a recession is on the way. Neither of these two indicators are warning of a recession. Global PMIs are hovering at a level that is consistent with robust growth. The erosion in the Global ZEW and the drop in the diffusion index of the Global LEI are worrying signs, but at the moment are consistent with a growth slowdown at worst (Chart I-3). Financial conditions remain growth-friendly and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously when tightening (in the case of the Fed and Bank of Canada) or tapering (ECB). As highlighted in last month's Overview, the global economy has entered a synchronized upturn that should persist for the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, but that should not occur until 2019 or 2020, barring any shocks in the near term. That said, risk asset prices have been bid up sharply and are therefore vulnerable to a correction. Below, we discuss five key risks to the equity bull market. (1) Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Our recent client meetings highlight that investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will see the light of day in the U.S. Tax cuts and infrastructure spending appear to have been priced out of the equity market, according to the index ratios shown in Chart I-4. We still expect a modest package to eventually be passed, although time is running out for this year. Tax reform is a major component of Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart I-3Some Worrying Signs On Growth Chart I-4Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out One implication of Tropical Storm Harvey is that it might force Democrats and Republicans to cooperate on an infrastructure bill for rebuilding. Even a modest spending boost or tax reduction would be equity-market positive given that so little is currently discounted. The dollar should also receive a lift, especially given that the Fed might respond to any fiscally-driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. (2) Who Will Lead The Fed? There is a significant chance that either Yellen will refuse to stay on when her term expires next February or that Trump will appoint someone else anyway. In this case, we would expect the President to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. Cohn could not arrive at the Fed and change the course of monetary policy on day one. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but in reality decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). The only way Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy is if the Administration stacks the Fed Governors with appointees that are prepared to "toe the line" (the Administration does not appoint Regional Fed Presidents). Stacking the Governorships would take time. Nonetheless, it is not clear why President Trump would take a heavy hand in monetary policy when the current FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy. The bottom line is that we would not see Cohn's appointment to the Fed Chair as signaling a major shift in monetary policy one way or the other. (3) The Debt Ceiling A more immediate threat is the debt ceiling. Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pit fiscally conservative Republicans against the moderates, and it is possible that the debt ceiling is used as a bargaining chip in this battle. While government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will always be raised because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors or a halt to other entitlement programs. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. Democrats will not stand in the way of passage in the Senate. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown in the first half of October, just before the debt ceiling is hit. We would not expect a shutdown to have any lasting impact on the economy, although it could provide an excuse for the equity market to correct. That said, the risk of even a shutdown has been diminished by events in Houston. It would be very difficult and damaging politically to shut down the government during a humanitarian emergency. (4) Trade And Protectionism The removal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique within the Trump Administration. National Economic Council President Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now firmly in charge of economic policy. The mainstream media has interpreted this shift within the Administration as reducing the risk of trade friction. We do not see it that way. President Trump still sounds hawkish on trade, particularly with respect to China. Our geopolitical experts point out that there are few constraints on the President to imposing trade sanctions on China or other countries. He could use such action to boost his popularity among his base heading into next year's midterm elections. On NAFTA, the Administration took a hard line as negotiations kicked off in August. This could be no more than a negotiating tactic. Our base case is that it will be some time before investors find out if negotiations are going off the rails. That said, the situation is volatile for both NAFTA and China, and we can't rule out a trade-related risk-off phase in financial markets over the next year. (5) North Korea North Korea's missile launch over Japan highlights that the tense situation is a long way from a resolution. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve the standoff. There are long-standing constraints to war, including the likelihood of a high death toll in Seoul. Moreover, China is unlikely to remain neutral in any conflict. However, the U.S. will attempt to establish a credible threat in order to contain Kim Jong-un. From an investor's perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military displays are simply posturing or evidence of real preparations for war.2 We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. Adding it all up, there is no shortage of things to keep investors awake at night. We would be de-risking our recommended portfolio were it not for the favorable earnings backdrop in the major advanced economies. Profit Outlook Update Chart I-5EPS Growth Outlook Second quarter earnings season came in even stronger than our upbeat models suggested in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. This led to upward revisions to our EPS growth forecast, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The U.S. equity market enjoyed another quarter of margin expansion in Q2 2017 and the good news was broadly based. Earnings per share were higher versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Looking ahead, an update of our top-down model suggests the EPS growth will peak just under 20% late this year on a 4-quarter moving average basis, before falling to mid-single digits by the end of 2018 (Chart I-5). The peak is predicted to be a little higher than we previously forecast largely due to the feed-through of this year's pullback in the dollar. In Japan, a solid 70% of reporting firms beat estimates. Chart I-6 shows that Japan led all other major stock markets in positive earnings surprises in the second quarter. Manufacturing sectors, such as iron & steel, chemicals and machinery & electronics, were particularly impressive in the quarter, reflecting yen weakness and robust overseas demand. Japanese earnings are highly geared to the rebound in global industrial production. Moreover, Japan's nominal GDP growth accelerated in the second quarter and the latest PPI report suggested that corporate pricing power has improved. Twelve-month forward EPS estimates have risen to fresh all times highs, and have outperformed the U.S. in local currencies so far this year. Corporate governance reform - a key element of Abenomics - can take some credit for the good news on earnings. The share of companies with at least two independent directors rose from 18% in 2013 to 78% in 2016. The number of companies with performance-linked pay increased from 640 to 941, while the number that publish disclosure policies jumped from 679 to 1055. Analysts have been slow to factor in these positive developments. We expect trailing EPS growth to peak at about 25% in the first half of 2018 on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before edging lower by the end of the year. This is one reason why we like the Japanese market over the U.S. in local currency terms. Second quarter results in the Eurozone were solid, although not as impressive as in the U.S. and Japan. The 6% rise in the trade-weighted euro this year has resulted in a drop in the earnings revisions ratio into negative territory. Our previous forecast pointed to a continued rise in the 4-quarter moving average growth rate into the first half of 2018. However, we now expect the growth rate to dip by year end, before picking up somewhat next year. If the euro is flat from today's level, our model suggests that the drag on EPS growth will hover at 3-4 percentage points through the first half of next year as the negative impact feeds through (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-6Japan Led In Q2 Earning Surprises Chart I-7Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Our top-down EPS model highlights that Eurozone earnings are quite sensitive to swings in the currency. In Chart I-7, we present alternative scenarios based on the euro weakening to EUR/USD 1.10 and strengthening to EUR/USD 1.30. For demonstration purposes we make the extreme assumption that the trade-weighted value of the euro rises and falls by the same amount in percentage terms. Profit growth decelerates by the end of 2017 in all three scenarios because of the lagged effect of currency swings. The projections begin to diverge only in 2018. EPS growth surges to around 20% by the end of next year in the euro-bear case, as the tailwind from the weakening currency combines with continuing robust economic growth. Conversely, trailing earnings growth hovers in the 5-8% range in the euro bull scenario, which is substantially less than we expect in the U.S. and Japan over the next year. EPS growth remains in positive territory because the assumed strength in European and global growth dominates the drag from the euro. The strong euro scenario would be negative for Eurozone equity relative performance versus global stocks in local currencies, although Europe might outperform on a common currency basis. The bottom line is that 12-month forward earnings estimates should remain in an uptrend in the three major economies. This means that, absent a negative political shock, the equity bull phase should resume in the coming months. Monetary policy is unlikely to spoil the party for risk assets, although the bond market is a source of risk because investors seem unprepared for even a modest rise in inflation. FOMC Has Seen This Before The Minutes from the July FOMC meeting highlighted that the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. Chart I-8The FOMC Has Been Here Before The majority of policymakers are willing for now to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven largely by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excess risk taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. The hawks are thus anxious to resume tightening, despite current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. In this month's Special Report beginning on page 18, we have a close look at the impact of "Amazonification" in holding down overall inflation. We do not find the evidence regarding e-commerce compelling, but the jury is still out on the impact of other technologies. If robots and new business strategies are indeed weighing on inflation, it would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. The last time the Fed was perplexed by a low level of inflation despite a tight labor market was in the late 1990s (Chart I-8). The FOMC cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998, and then held the fed funds rate unchanged at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period at 1% to 1½%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to growing labor shortages. The FOMC 's internal debate in the first half of 1999 sounded very familiar. The minutes from meetings at that time noted that some policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. Some argued that significant cost saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. One difference from today is that productivity growth was solid at that time. The FOMC decided to hike rates in June 1999 by a quarter point, despite the absence of any clear indication that inflation had turned up. Policymakers described the tightening as "a small preemptive move... (that) would provide a degree of insurance against worsening inflation later". The Fed went on to lift the fed funds rate to 6½% by May 2000. Interestingly, the unemployment rate in June 1999 was 4.3%, exactly the same as the current rate. There are undoubtedly important differences in today's macro backdrop. The Fed is also more fearful of making a policy mistake in the aftermath of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, the point is that the Fed has faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment before, but in the end patience ran out and policymakers acted pre-emptively. Inflation Warning Signs During Long-Expansions We have noted in previous research that inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, such as the 1980s and 1990s. In Chart I-9, we compare the core PCE inflation rate in the current cycle with the average of the previous two long expansion episodes (the inflection point for inflation in the previous cycles are aligned with June 2017 for comparison purposes). The other panels in the chart highlight that, in the 1980s and 1990s, wage growth was a lagging indicator. Economic commentators often assume that inflation is driven exclusively by "cost push" effects, such that the direction of causation runs from wage pressure to price pressure. However, causation runs in the other direction as well. Households see rising prices and then demand better wages to compensate for the added cost of living. This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does mean that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart I-10. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart I-10 because it does not have enough history. At the moment, the headline PPI, ISM Prices Paid and BCA's pipeline inflation pressure index are all warning that inflation pressures are gradually building. However, this message is not confirmed by the St. Louis Fed's index and corporate selling prices. We are also watching the velocity of money, which has been a reasonably good leading indicator for U.S. inflation since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-9In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth ##br##Gave No Early Warning On Inflation Chart I-10Leading Indicators Of Inflation ##br##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Chart I-11Money Velocity And Inflation Our Fed view remains unchanged from last month; the FOMC will announce its balance sheet diet plan in September and the next rate hike will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. Some indicators are pointing in that direction and recent dollar weakness will help. Wake Me When Inflation Picks Up Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook. They also believe that persistent economic headwinds mean that monetary policy will need to stay highly accommodative for a very long time. Only one Fed rate hike is discounted between now and the end of 2018, and implied forward real short-term rates are negative until 2022. While we do not foresee surging inflation, the risks for market expectations appear quite lopsided. We expect one rate hike by year end, followed by at least another 50 basis points of tightening in 2018. The U.S. 10-year yield is also about almost 50 basis points below our short-term fair value estimate (Chart I-12). Moreover, over the medium- and long-term, reduced central bank bond purchases will impart gentle upward pressure on equilibrium bond yields. Twenty-eighteen will be the first time in four years in which the net supply of government bonds available to private investors will rise, taking the U.S., U.K., Eurozone and Japanese markets as a group. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. The currency appreciation will keep a lid on inflation in the near term. However, we see the euro's ascent as reflective of the booming economy, rather than a major headwind that will derail the growth story. Overall financial conditions have tightened this year, but only back to levels that persisted through 2016 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value Chart I-13Financial Conditions It will take clear signs that the economy is being negatively affected by currency strength for the ECB to back away from tapering. Indeed, the central bank has little choice because the bond buying program is approaching important technical limits. European corporate and peripheral bond spreads are likely to widen versus bunds as a result. The implication is that global yields have significant upside potential relative to forward rates, especially in the U.S. market. Duration should be kept short. JGBs are the only safe place to hide if global yields shift up because the Bank of Japan is a long way from abandoning its 10-year yield peg. Treasury yields should lead the way higher, which will finally place a bottom under the beleaguered dollar. Nonetheless, we are tactically at neutral on the greenback. Conclusions Chart I-14Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises In light of rising geopolitical risk, the BCA Strategists recently debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. Some argued that the risk/reward balance has deteriorated; the upside is limited by poor valuation, while there is significant downside potential if the North Korean situation deteriorates alarmingly. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds and JGBs have been the best performers in times of crisis (Chart I-14).3 The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Gold has tended to perform well in geopolitical events and recessions, although not in financial crises. We continue to prefer Japanese to U.S. stocks in local currency terms, given that EPS growth will likely peak in the U.S. first. Japanese stocks are also better valued. Europe is a tough call because this year's currency strength will weigh on earnings in the next quarter or two. However, the negative impact on earnings will reverse if the euro retraces as we expect. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. Our dollar and duration positions have been disappointing so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the idea that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. This means that the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside surprises on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to us to be predominantly to the upside. Lastly, crude oil inventories are shrinking as our commodity strategists predicted. They remain bullish, with a price target of USD60/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 31, 2017 Next Report: September 28, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks struggled in August on the back of intensifying geopolitical risks, such that equity returns slipped versus bonds in the month. The earnings backdrop remains constructive for global stocks. In the U.S., 12-month forward EPS estimates continue to climb, in line with upbeat net revisions and earnings surprises. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has deteriorated due to escalating risks inside and outside of the U.S. Allocation to risk assets should still exceed benchmark, but should be shy of maximum settings. It is prudent to hold some of the traditional safe haven assets, including gold. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained at 100% in August, sending a bullish message for equities. We introduced the RPI in the July report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. WTP topped out in June and the same occurred in August for the Japan and the Eurozone indexes. While the indicators are still bullish, they highlight that flows into the equity markets in the major countries are beginning to moderate. These indicators would have to clearly turn lower to provide a bearish signal for stocks. The VIX increased last month, but remains depressed by historical standards. This implies that the equity market is vulnerable to bad news. However, investor sentiment is close to neutral and our speculation index has pulled back from previously elevated levels. These suggest that investors are not overly long at the moment. Our monetary indicator is only slightly negative, but the equity technical indicator is close to breaking below the 9-month moving average (a negative technical sign). Bond valuation continues to hover near fair value, according to our long-standing model that is based on a simple regression of the nominal 10-year yield on short-term real interest rates and a moving average of inflation. Another model, presented in the Overview section, estimates fair value based on dollar sentiment, a measure of policy uncertainty and the global PMI. This model suggests that the 10-year yield is almost 50 basis points on the expensive side. We think that Fed rate expectations are far too benign, suggesting that bond yields will rise. 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 ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: 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

Bank Credit Analyst

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

Neutral At the beginning of the summer, we downgraded the S&P health care equipment (HCE) index to neutral for three main reasons: valuations had shot higher, demand had downshifted and pricing had cooled substantially. Relative valuations have since fallen back (top panel), but the operating environment has worsened, providing confirmation that our downgrade was well-timed. Both HCE orders and production crested in the middle of 2016 and have been falling since, production precipitously so (second panel). At the same time, medical equipment relative selling prices have been contracting (third panel), indicating the industry could be in oversupply despite slowing production. The likely result is contracting margins and valuation multiples. Still, the news is not all bad. New health care facility construction has recovered recently and investment in medical equipment may follow suit (bottom panel), potentially portending a resurgence in demand. On balance, we think it prudent to sit on the sidelines and wait for evidence of a recovery in pricing power before reentering the fray; stay neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HCEP: ABT, BAX, BCR, BDX, BSX, DHR, EW, HOLX, IDXX, ISRG, MDT, RMD, SYK, VAR, ZBH.

The latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile paints a rosy picture for bank earnings growth. A surge in net interest income drove the industry Q2 net interest margin (NIM) to its highest level in 4 years, and the return on assets to the highest level in 10 years (second and third panels). Should inflation pick up in the back half of the year as we expect, it should be accompanied by a steeper yield curve and further NIM expansion. Encouragingly, noncurrent C&I loans have peaked (bottom panel), a strong signal that the credit cycle has turned positive. Improving credit quality in this largest category of bank credit should have the double impact of raising earnings and encouraging increasing loan growth. In short, this report reinforces our expectation that soaring consumer and business confidence, rising corporate profits and a potential capital spending revival will support the relative outperformance of banks. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.

Highlights Dear Client, The Global Fixed Investment Strategy will not be publishing next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 12, 2017. Jackson Hole: Last week's Fed conference did not produce any signals on policy shifts from the Fed or ECB. Yet the outlook for either central bank over the next year has not changed. The Fed will deliver more hikes than currently discounted by the market, while the ECB will taper the pace of its asset purchases. A below-benchmark duration stance is warranted on a 6-12 month horizon. IG Sector Performance: Our Investment Grade (IG) corporate sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., taken from our relative value models, have generated outperformance versus the regional benchmarks since the beginning of the year, led by overweights to Banks. The alpha of sector selection should start to outweigh the beta of owning corporates in the next 6-12 months, given the tight overall level of spreads and flat credit curves. Feature Markets Were Too Jacked Up For Jackson Hole Well, so much for that. The highly anticipated Federal Reserve symposium in Jackson Hole last weekend provided little in the way of guidance on the future monetary policy moves in the U.S. or Europe. The speakers at Jackson Hole, including Fed Chair Janet Yellen and ECB President Mario Draghi, instead chose to focus more on factors that they cannot directly control, such as trade protectionism, income inequality and technological change. Chart of the WeekTougher Regulations Or Just Easy Money? The market reaction was interesting. Bond yields and equities were essentially unchanged on the day last Friday, but the U.S. dollar ended softer, especially versus the euro. Perhaps this was simply a function of very short-term positioning in currency markets. The speculation prior to Jackson Hole was that Yellen might talk up another Fed rate hike to offset to stimulative effects of booming financial asset prices, perhaps in the absence of any renewed pickup in U.S. inflation. At the same time, there were expectations that Draghi could use his speech to dial back expectations of a reduction in ECB asset purchases, which have helped fuel the strong rally in the euro. With both central bankers delivering a big "nothing burger" with regards to policy changes, speculators likely covered their positions. The speeches from Yellen and Draghi were not totally without meaningful content, however. They both warned about the potential risks from dialing back some of the post-crisis regulatory changes to the infrastructure of the global financial system. Both of them went as far as stating that the stronger regulatory backdrop has been a major factor behind the current health of the global economy: Yellen: "Our more resilient financial system is better prepared to absorb, rather than amplify, adverse shocks, as has been illustrated during periods of market turbulence in recent years." Draghi: "[...] lax regulation runs the risk of stoking financial imbalances. By contrast, the stronger regulatory regime that we now have has enabled economies to endure a long period of low interest rates without any significant side-effects." This is an interesting way to spin the events of the past decade. Yes, regulatory reforms have forced global banks to hold higher levels of capital. This should, in theory, help mitigate the spillover effects on the real economy from periodic financial market sell-offs that could make banks more risk-averse. Yet central banks have, at the same time, maintained incredibly loose monetary policies that have helped support both global growth and bull markets in risk assets (Chart of the Week). It is, at best, complacency and, at worst, hubris for Yellen or Draghi to say that the financial system can handle market shocks better when their own hyper-easy monetary policies are a big reason why asset markets have avoided protracted sell-offs. "Buy the dip" is an easy investment strategy when central banks are providing a liquidity tailwind while keeping risk-free interest rates at unattractive levels. Yet market valuations are now at the point where the payoff to buying the dips will be much lower than in recent years, presenting a challenge to financial stability for policymakers looking to incrementally become less accommodative. In Charts 2A & 2B, we show the range of asset prices and valuations for key fixed income and equity markets since 1990. The blue dots in each panel represent the latest reading, while the historical ranges are the thick lines. The benchmark 10-year government bond yields for the U.S., Germany, Japan and the U.K. are shown in Chart 2A, both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms.1 In Chart 2B, the trailing price-earnings multiples for global equity markets and option-adjusted spreads for the major global credit sectors (corporate bonds and Emerging Market debt) are displayed. Chart 2AGlobal Asset Valuations, 1990-2017 Chart 2BGlobal Asset Valuations, 1990-2017 Within fixed income, nominal government bond yields and credit spreads are trading at the low end of the historical ranges. Equity valuations are not yet at the stretched extremes seen during the late 1990s dot-com bubble, although longer-term measures like the CAPE (cyclically-adjusted price earnings) ratio are much closer to all-time highs. By any measure, most financial assets are not cheap, thanks in large part to the easy monetary backdrop. Right now, the current tranquil market backdrop is increasingly at risk from a shift in monetary policies. The Fed and ECB are still confronted with the problem of tight labor markets alongside tame inflation (Chart 3). While there has been a much more vigorous debate among central bankers on the effectiveness of using a Phillips Curve framework for forecasting inflation, the plain truth is that policymakers do not have any reliable alternative. The best they can do is stick with the unemployment-versus-inflation trade-off and go more slowly on policy adjustments when inflation undershoots levels suggested by strong labor markets. At the moment, there is no immediate need for either the Fed or ECB to tighten monetary policy. Realized inflation rates on both sides of the Atlantic are still below the 2% target. Our Central Bank Monitors for the U.S. and Euro Area are both hovering around the zero line (Chart 4), also indicating that no imminent changes in the policy stance are required. Chart 3Fed & ECB Facing The Same##BR##Phillips Curve Dilemma Chart 4Bond & FX Markets Look Fully##BR##Priced For A Stronger Europe The improvement in the Euro Area Monitor is related to both faster domestic economic growth and a slow-but-steady rise in inflation, trends that are likely to be maintained over at least the next 6-12 months given the strength of European leading economic indicators. However, the decline in the U.S. Monitor is largely a function of the recent surprising dip in U.S. inflation (both prices and wages) over the past few months. We expect that to soon begin to reverse on the back of reaccelerating U.S. growth and a rebound in inflation fueled in part by the lagged impact of the weaker U.S. dollar. The greenback's decline this year versus the euro has been a reflection of a more rapid improvement in European economic growth (3rd panel). Although this looks to have overshot with the EUR/USD exchange rate rising far more rapidly than implied by interest rate differentials between the U.S. and Europe (bottom panel). This either suggests that European bond yields must rise relative to U.S. yields to justify the current level of EUR/USD (a UST-Bund spread close to 100bs based on the relationship over the past three years), or that the currency must pull back to valuations more consistent with interest rate differentials (around 1.10, also based on the post-2014 correlations). The easier path is for the currency to soften up rather than European bond yields rising faster than U.S. Treasuries. The ECB is still far from contemplating an actual interest rate hike, and is only debating the need to continue buying European bonds at the current pace. At the same time, there is now barely one full 25bp Fed rate hike discounted by the market, which makes Treasuries more vulnerable to the rebound in U.S. growth and inflation that we expect. That outcome is not conditional on any easing of U.S. fiscal policy, but any success by the Trump White House in delivering tax cuts would only force the Fed to hike rates to offset the stimulus to an economy already at full employment. In other words, we see more reasons for both U.S. Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar to go up from current levels versus European equivalents. Bottom Line: Last week's Fed conference at Jackson Hole did not produce any signals on policy shifts from the Fed or ECB. Yet the outlook for either central bank over the next year has not changed. The Fed will deliver more hikes than currently discounted by the market, while the ECB will taper the pace of its asset purchases. A below-benchmark duration stance is warranted on a 6-12 month horizon. A Brief Update On The Performance Of Our Corporate Bond Sector Allocation Recommendations Chart 5Performance Of Our IG Sector Allocations We last published an update of our Investment Grade (IG) sector valuation models for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. back on June 6th.2 This followed up on our report from January 24th of this year where we added our IG sector recommendations to our model bond portfolio.3 That meant putting actual weightings to each sub-sector within the overall IG index for each region, rather than a more nebulous "overweight", "underweight" or "neutral" recommendation. This was in keeping with the spirit of our overall model bond portfolio framework, which is to present a more transparent measure of how our recommended tilts would perform as a hypothetical fully-invested fixed income portfolio. Our IG sector allocations come from our IG relative value model, which is designed to measure the valuation of each sector relative to the overall Barclays Bloomberg corporate bond index for each region. The latest output of the model can be found in the Appendix on page 14. The current valuations have not changed material from that June 6th report, suggesting that the rally in corporate bond markets has been more about beta driving the valuations of all sectors. In other words, the sectors have maintained their value relative to each other and to the overall IG index over the past few months. Having said that, our sector allocations have still been able to deliver some extra return versus the regional benchmarks since we started putting specific weights to our sector tilts back in January. Since then, our sector tilts have added +3bps of "active" excess return (i.e. returns over duration-matched government bonds) versus the IG benchmark in the U.S., +9bps in the Euro Area and an impressive +32bps in the U.K. (Chart 5). Most of that outperformance came between January and our last update, with only the U.K. showing gains since June. The specifics of the returns can be found in Table 1 for the U.S., Table 2 for the Euro Area and Table 3 for the U.K. For all three regions, the biggest source of the outperformance of our allocations has come from the overweight positions in Financials, specifically Banks. As any corporate bond portfolio manager will attest, the large weighting of Financials in IG bond indices makes the Financials versus Non-Financials decision the most important one to make. Our model bond portfolio is no different. Table 1U.S. Investment Grade Performance Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Performance Table 3U.K. Investment Grade Performance Looking ahead, we expect that sector allocations may soon begin to have a greater impact on the performance of IG corporate bond portfolios, given how flat credit curves have become (Chart 6). The spread between BBB-rated corporates and A-rated corporates is at historically narrow levels in all regions. The flattening of credit curves may be reaching a resistance level in the U.S. and U.K., but not so in the Euro Area where the gap between BBB-rated and A-rated corporates is now a mere 34bps. Chart 6Credit Quality Curves Are Very Flat The combination of a solid Euro Area economic upturn and persistent ECB buying of corporates as part of its asset purchase program has driven a reduction of risk premiums throughout the Euro Area credit markets. Given our expectation that the ECB will be forced to begin tapering its asset purchase program in 2018, including the pace of corporate buying, we continue to maintain an underweight allocation to Euro Area IG corporates in our overall model portfolio. We are also seeking to limit our overall recommended spread risk to around index levels using our preferred metric, Duration Times Spread (DTS). At the same time, we are maintaining our recommended overweights to U.S. IG and U.K. IG, sticking with above-benchmark tilts in the Banks, while maintaining a portfolio DTS close to the overall index DTS. In the U.S., we are also keeping an overweight bias on Energy-related sectors, which offer the most attractive valuations despite having a higher DTS than the overall benchmark index. Our underweights in higher DTS U.S. sectors, specifically in the Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Utilities groupings, offset the DTS exposure from our recommended Energy overweight. Bottom Line: Our Investment Grade (IG) corporate sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., taken from our relative value models, have generated outperformance versus the regional benchmarks since the beginning of the year, led by overweights to Banks. The alpha of sector selection should start to outweigh the beta of owning corporates in the next 6-12 months, given the tight overall level of spreads and flat credit curves. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 In the bottom panel of Chart 2A, we deflate nominal 10-year bond yields by a 3-year moving average of realized headline inflation to smooth out the fluctuations in inflation. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Updating Our Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sector Allocations", dated June 6th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors To Our Model Portfolio Framework", dated January 24th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1U.S. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 1U.S. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 3U.K. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 3U.K. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index