Italy

Highlights Four high conviction long-term investment views: The Italy versus Spain sovereign yield spread will compress. The yen will go up. The yield shortfall on German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds will compress. Swedish real estate prices will face strong headwinds. Chart of the WeekThe Italy Versus Spain Sovereign Yield Spread Is At An All-Time Wide Feature This week's report focusses on 'must-read' recent commentaries from two giants of central banking: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB 2011-19; and Paul Volcker, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve 1979-87. In the case of Paul Volcker, the term giant is not just metaphorical but also literal, as he stands six feet seven inches tall! The Volcker piece is the more profound of the two commentaries because it shatters a shibboleth of monetary policy - the 2 percent inflation target. But we will begin with Draghi. Draghi Reveals Some Home Truths The first must-read is the transcript of the latest ECB press conference.1 Draghi's remarks provide valuable insights into the direction of euro area monetary policy, the impact on sovereign yield spreads, and a view on the budget spat between the EU and Draghi's country of origin, Italy. Despite the recent wobble in the euro area economy, the ECB remains on course to end QE and gradually raise ultra-accommodative interest rates. Although Draghi acknowledged the deceleration in euro area growth in the third quarter to 0.6 percent (annualised rate), he attributed some of it to "country-specific idiosyncratic phenomena", for example the car sector in Germany having to meet new standards on emissions. Another drag came from exports, but Draghi pointed out that "the emerging market situation seems to have stabilised". Meanwhile, euro area consumption trends remain pretty strong, buoyed by expanding employment and rising wages. Negotiated wages keep on going up. "This is a very comforting sign because it means that wage increases, which have been quite significant in some core countries, are going to stay". Most significantly, "the labour market keeps on expanding but it is progressively getting tighter and tighter, and capacity utilisation rates in most countries are pretty high". Draghi went on to correct a common myth. The ECB's QE (and its end) does not in itself impact euro area sovereign credit spreads, and he gave a powerful illustration. Although the ECB has not bought Greek bonds but has bought Italian bonds, the spread between Greece and Italy has narrowed sharply (Chart I-2). Hence, the end of QE does not imply widening spreads. "We would expect spreads to depend only on perceptions of net issuance... if countries were having the same net issuance, you wouldn't see any change in spreads". Chart I-2The ECB Hasn't Bought Greek Bonds, Yet The Greece Versus Italy Sovereign Spread Has Narrowed Draghi also provided an important insight on the recent low-level game of chicken between EU institutions and the Italian government over its 2019 budget. Draghi explained that for Italy, escalating the game of chicken risks higher interest rates through the bond market's perceptions for net issuance. But paradoxically, this reduces the room to expand the budget. The weakened capital position of Italian banks from lower bond prices (Chart I-3) combined with deteriorating funding conditions squeezes bank credit, economic growth, and thereby the very space that is needed for fiscal expansion. The latest bank credit data show signs of this danger (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Capital Position Of Italian Banks Is Weak... Chart I-4...And Italian Bank Credit Growth Has Faltered Meanwhile, for the EU, escalating the game of chicken risks financial market contagion to other so-called 'non-core' countries such as Spain. But so far, the sovereign yield spreads of the non-core countries indicate few signs of such danger (Chart I-5). Chart I-5No Major Contagion From Italy To Other Non-Core Countries... Yet Hence, at this stage in the low-level game of chicken, the onus to budge falls more on Italy than on the EU. Opining on his country of origin, Draghi says that in the end "it is just good common sense and perception of what is good for the country and the interests of the Italian people that will lead parties to converge to some sort of agreement". On the basis of Draghi's confidence, the long-term investment opportunity is the Italy versus Spain sovereign 10-year yield spread (Chart of the Week). At almost 200 bps, the spread is at its all-time widest, and incongruous with the vanishing gap between the non-performing loans ratios in Italy and Spain (Chart I-6). Still, for those interested in timing, our tactical stance is to wait for the 10-year BTP yield to move closer to 3 percent before buying Italian assets. Chart I-6Spain Fixed Its Banks In 2013, Italy Is Fixing Its Banks Now What's Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target The second, and more profound, must-read is a Bloomberg op-ed by Paul Volcker, What's Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target.2 To be fair, we have an ulterior motive as the Volcker op-ed repeats almost word for word a Special Report that we penned three years ago, Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation, and its subsequent update last year.3 Of course, we are not implying that Volcker based his piece on ours. Rather that it is a great honour that a central banking colossus such as Volcker would endorse every heterodox argument that we made. The 2 percent inflation target is a relatively recent phenomenon, whose origin can be traced back to New Zealand's Reserve Bank Act of 1989 (Chart I-7). But Volcker's (and our) overarching point is that in trying to manage an economy, "false precision can lead to dangerous policies". Price stability is that state in which expected changes in the general price level do not effectively alter business or household decisions (Chart I-8). However, it is ill-advised to define that state with a point target, such as 2 percent (Chart I-9). Chart I-7The 2 Percent Inflation Target Was Born In New Zealand In 1989 Chart I-8Excluding Wars, Britain Had Price Stability For Centuries Chart I-9Switzerland And Japan Have Had Price Stability For Decades Despite Not Achieving 2 Percent Inflation To paraphrase Volcker, a 2 percent target, or limit, is not in the textbooks; there is no theoretical justification; it is difficult to be both a target and a limit at the same time; and no price index can capture, down to a tenth or a quarter of a percent, the real change in consumer prices. Yet with economic growth robust and unemployment rates near historic lows, concerns are being voiced that consumer prices are growing too slowly - just because they are a quarter percent or so below the 2 percent target! Could that be a signal to delay restraint? That would be nonsense. The seeming numerical precision of 2 percent suggests that it is possible to fine-tune policy with more flexible targeting as conditions change. Unfortunately, the tools of monetary and fiscal policy simply do not permit that degree of precision. Another argument runs, let's keep a little inflation - even in a recession - as a kind of safeguard against deflation, and a backdoor way of keeping real interest rates negative. Borrowers will be enticed to borrow at zero or low interest rates, to invest before prices rise further. However, all these arguments seem to have little empirical support. Actual deflation is rare, yet the exaggerated fear of it can lead to policies that inadvertently increase the risk. Deflation is a threat posed by a critical breakdown of the financial system, so the real danger comes from encouraging extreme speculation and risk taking, in effect standing by while bubbles and excesses threaten financial markets (Chart 10). Previously, we wrote that "the single minded pursuit of 2 percent inflation creates risks and instabilities". Volcker issues a strikingly similar warning: "Ironically, the easy money, striving for a little inflation, as a means of forestalling deflation, could, in the end, be what brings it about". Chart I-10The Real Danger Comes From Bubbles And Financial Market Excesses Hence, the central banks whose interest rates remain at the zero bound - the BoJ, ECB, and Riksbank - are the ones whose policy is most dangerous and incongruous with their economic fundamentals. On this premise we hold three high conviction multi-year investment views: The yen will go up. The yield shortfall on German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds will compress. Swedish real estate prices will face strong headwinds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2018/html/ecb.is181025.en.html. 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-24/what-s-wrong-with-the-2-percent-inflation-target 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation' August 20, 2015 and Weekly Report 'Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation An Update' July 20, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* Long Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 achieved its 3.5% profit target and is now closed. There are no trades this week, leaving three open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 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 Asset Allocation Equity Regional And Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond And Interest Rate Allocation Currency And Other Allocation 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Duration Strategy: The recent market turmoil was a long overdue risk asset correction that does not change any fundamental underpinnings for rising global bond yields. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure, concentrated in an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries. Country Allocations: Continue allocating duration risk for global government bond portfolios in favor of countries where central banks will have difficulty raising interest rates (Australia, U.K., Japan core Europe) relative to countries where rate hikes are more necessary and likely to happen (U.S., Canada). Feature Repricing "Central Banker Puts" Can Be Painful By a quirk of our scheduling, we have not published a regular Weekly Report since September, during what became a period of more turbulent global financial markets. While we trust that our clients have enjoyed the Special Reports that we have published instead, we are certain that many are asking an obvious question: have the more jittery markets triggered any change in BCA's views on global fixed income? The answer is "no". Just like the sharp "Vol-mageddon" risk asset selloff back in early February, the origin of the recent volatility spike was soaring U.S. Treasury yields driven by a rapid upward revision of Fed rate hike expectations (Chart of the Week). We had been expecting such an adjustment based on our positive assessment of the underlying momentum of both economic growth and inflation in the U.S. This remains a critical underpinning for our below-benchmark call on U.S. duration exposure, and our increased caution on U.S. spread product. Chart of the WeekRisk Assets Struggling As Bond Yields Rise There is more to the story than just the Fed, however. Throughout the course of 2018, we have been warning that global central banks moving away from accommodative monetary policies would be the greatest threat to market stability. This is not only a story of Fed rate hikes. A reduction in the pace of asset purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ), combined with outright contraction of the Fed's swollen balance sheet, has created a backdrop more conducive to volatile spikes - especially if the global economy is losing upward momentum at the same time. The OECD leading economic indicator has been steadily declining throughout 2018, a reflection of the more challenging backdrop for non-U.S. growth. It is no coincidence that, without the support from accelerating liquidity or positive economic momentum, many of last year's best performing investments (Italian government bonds, the Turkish lira, Emerging Market (EM) hard currency corporate debt) have been some of 2018's worst (Chart 2). Investors were willing to ignore the poor structural fundamentals underlying those markets when times were good, but have been much more cautious in 2018 with a less supportive macro environment. Chart 2The Darlings Of 2017 Are The Duds Of 2018 While there have been numerous political headlines that have caused bouts of market turbulence in the past few months - the escalating U.S.-China "tariff war", the Italian fiscal debate with the European Union - the short-term impact of these moves is magnified when global monetary policy is being tightened and global growth is cooling. The reason why central banks have been forced to turn more hawkish (or at least less dovish) is that diminished economic slack has forced their hands. For policymakers with an inflation-targeting mandate, the Phillips curve framework remains the primary analytical framework. When they see low unemployment, they get nervous. When they see low unemployment AND rising inflation, then become hawkish. Three-quarters of OECD countries now have an unemployment rate below the estimate of the full-employment NAIRU - the highest level in a decade - and realized inflation rates are accelerating in the major developed economies (Chart 3). Our own Central Bank Monitors are signaling the need for tighter monetary policy in most countries, while yields at the front-ends of government bond curves are steadily rising. Chart 3Central Bankers Still Believe In The Phillips Curve Looking ahead, we continue to see more upward pressure on global bond yields in the next 6-12 months. Market pricing for the future policy actions of the major central bank did not move much even with the surge in volatility earlier this month. The markets now understand that the "policymaker put" that central bankers have implicitly sold to investors has a much lower strike price when labor markets are tight and inflation is accelerating. It will take much larger selloffs to cause central banks to become less hawkish. We still see the decisions we made in late June, moving to a more cautious recommended stance on overall risk in fixed income portfolios, as appropriate. Staying below-benchmark on overall global duration risk, while underweighting those countries where the central banks are under the greatest pressure to tighten policy, is the most sensible way to allocate a fully-investment government bond portfolio. That means underweighting the U.S. and Canada and overweighting Japan, Australia and the U.K. (Chart 4). In terms of credit, we are maintaining an overall neutral stance, but favoring the U.S. versus European equivalents and a maximum underweight on EM credit. Chart 4Interest Rates Remain Unfazed By More Jittery Markets Bottom Line: The recent market turmoil was a long-overdue risk asset correction that does not change any fundamental underpinnings for rising global bond yields. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure, concentrated in an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries. The Most Important Charts For Our Most Important Country Duration Views When determining our recommended fixed income country allocation, there are a few critical indicators we are watching to assess if those views should be maintained. We now go over each of those indicators for the most important developed economy bond markets: U.S. (Underweight): Watch TIPS Breakevens & The Employment/Population Ratio U.S. Treasuries have been the one major government bond market this year that has seen a rise in both inflation expectations and real yields. The breakeven inflation rate implied by the spread between 10-year nominal Treasuries and TIPS has gone up from 1.97% to 2.10% since the start of 2018, while the real 10-year TIPS yield has climbed from 0.44% to 1.09% over the same period. The rise in inflation expectations has occurred alongside an acceleration of U.S. economic growth and a generalized rise in inflation pressures. Reliable cyclical leading indicators like the ISM Manufacturing index and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge are pointing to an acceleration of U.S. core CPI inflation towards the 2.5-3% range over the next year (Chart 5). This would be enough to push 10-year TIPS breakevens comfortably into the 2.3-2.5% range that we deem consistent with the Fed's price stability target (core PCE inflation at 2%). Chart 5U.S.: Both Real Yields & Inflation Expectations Are Rising Any larger move in inflation expectations would only occur if the Fed were to accommodate it by not continuing to hike rates at the current 25bps/quarter pace. That is unlikely with the strength of the U.S. labor market suggesting that the Fed is behind the curve on rate hikes. The U.S. employment/population ratio for prime age (25-54 years old) workers has almost returned back to the peak levels of the mid-2000s near 80% (bottom panel). The Fed had to push the real funds rate to over 3% during that cycle to get policy to a restrictive setting above the Fed's estimate of the r-star neutral real rate. While it is unlikely that the Fed will need to push the real funds rate to as high a level as in the mid-2000s, the current real rate has not even caught up to the Fed's r-star estimate, which is starting to slowly increase alongside the stronger U.S. economy. That implies a higher nominal funds rate would be needed to push up the real rate to neutral levels, with even more nominal increases needed if inflation continues to accelerate. With only 62bps of rate hikes over the next year currently discounted in the USD Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve, there is scope for Treasury yields to rise further over the next 6-12 months. Core Europe (Underweight): Watch Realized Inflation Relative to ECB Forecasts In the euro area, the evolution of unemployment, wage growth and core inflation compared to the ECB's positive forecasts will be the critical driver of the future direction of government bond yields. In its latest set of economic projections published last month, the ECB expects the overall euro area unemployment rate to be 8.3% in 2018, 7.8% in 2019 and 7.4% in 2020.1 With the actual unemployment rate falling to 8.1% in August, the realized outcomes are already exceeding the ECB's forecasts (Chart 6). The same can be said for euro area wages, where the growth in compensation per employee (2.45%) is already running above the 2018 ECB projection of 2.2%. The ECB expects no acceleration of wage growth in 2019 (2.2%), but a further ratcheting up in 2020 (2.7%). Chart 6Euro Area: Expect Higher Yields If ECB Forecasts Materialize In a recent Special Report, we identified a leading relationship between wage growth and core HICP inflation in the euro area of around nine months.2 This would suggest that core HICP inflation should rise towards 1.5% within the next six months based on the current acceleration of wage growth (second panel). This would be above the ECB's current projection for 2018 (1.1%), but in line with the 2019 forecast (1.5%). Core inflation is projected to rise to 1.8% in 2020. If unemployment and inflation even just match the ECB's forecasts, there is likely to be a material repricing of core European bond yields through higher inflation expectations. At 1.7%, 10-year EUR CPI swaps are well below the +2% levels that occurred during the past two ECB rate hike cycles in the mid-2000s and 2010-11 (third panel). Both wage and core price inflation in the euro area were around the ECB's current 2019-2020 projections during both of those prior tightening episodes, suggesting that the past may indeed be prologue when it comes to inflation expectations. Given growing U.S.-China trade tensions, and uncertainties over the future path for Chinese economic growth, there is a risk that the ECB's growth and unemployment forecasts are too optimistic. The euro area economy remains highly levered to exports, and to Chinese demand in particular. Furthermore, the ECB continues to provide very dovish forward guidance, with no rate hikes expected until at least September 2019. Yet with a mere 12bps of rate hikes over the next year currently discounted in the EUR OIS curve, there is scope for core European bond yields to rise further over the next 6-12 months if euro area inflation surprises to the upside. Italy (Underweight): Watch Non-Italian Bond Spreads & The Euro The Italian budget battle with the European Union has been a gripping drama for investors in recent months. Italian bond yields have been under steady upward pressure, with the benchmark 10-year yield getting as high as 3.78%. Yet the story remains as much about sluggish Italian growth as it is about Italian fiscal policy. The populist Italian government has pushed for larger deficits, but has toned down the anti-euro language that dominated the election campaign earlier this year. This is why there has been very minimal contagion from higher Italian bond yields into other Peripheral European bond yields or euro area corporate bond spreads, or into the euro itself which remains very firm on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 7). Chart 7Italy: A Story Of Weak Growth, Not Euro Break-Up We continue to view Italian government bonds as a growth-sensitive credit instrument, like corporate bonds. In other words, faster Italian economic growth implies greater tax revenues, smaller budget deficits and a less worrisome trajectory for Italy's debt/GDP ratio. The opposite holds true when Italian economic growth is slowing. This is why there is a reliable directional relationship between Italy-Germany bond yield spreads and the OECD's leading economic indicator (LEI) for Italy (top panel). With the Italy LEI still in a downtrend, we do not yet see a cyclical case for shifting away from an underweight stance on Italian government bonds. Yet if the 10-year Italian yield were to reach 4%, the implied mark-to-market loss would wipe out the capital of Italy's banks, who own large quantities of government bonds. In that scenario, the ECB would likely get involved to stem the crisis, possibly by further delaying rate hikes of ramping up asset purchases. This would especially be likely if there was significant widening of non-Italian credit spreads and a sharply weaker euro. Hence, watch those markets for signs that the Italy fiscal crisis could trigger a monetary policy response. U.K. (Overweight): Watch Real Wage Growth & Business Confidence In the U.K., our non-consensus call to stay overweight Gilts has not been based on any long-run value considerations. Real yields remain depressed and the Bank of England (BoE) has kept monetary policy settings at extremely accommodative levels. The BoE continues to expect that a rise in real wage growth is likely due to the very tight U.K. labor market. This would support consumer spending and eventually require higher interest rates. The only problem is that this is happening very slowly. The annual growth in U.K. wage growth is now up to 3.1%, the fastest rate since 2008. This is above the pace of headline CPI inflation of 2.5%, thus real wages are finally starting to perk up (Chart 8). A continuation of this trend would feed into faster consumer spending and, eventually, trigger BoE rate hikes. Chart 8U.K.: Brexit Uncertainty + Middling Inflation = BoE Doing Little One other big impediment to the BoE turning more hawkish is the uncertainty over the U.K. government's Brexit negotiations with the EU. The extended Brexit drama has weighed on both U.K. business and consumer confidence, both of which have struggled since the 2016 Brexit vote (third panel). With the March 2019 deadline for the U.K. "officially" leaving the EU fast approaching, the odds of no deal being reached in time are increasing. U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May is desperately trying to avoid a no-deal Brexit, but such an outcome would create further instability in U.K. financial markets and close any near-term window of opportunity for the BoE to try and hike rates. For now, we see the depressed confidence from Brexit uncertainty offsetting the bump up in real wage growth, leaving Gilts on a path to continue modestly outperforming as they have throughout 2018 (bottom panel). An announcement of a Brexit deal would be a likely trigger for us to downgrade Gilts to neutral, and perhaps even to underweight given the developing uptrend in real wage growth. Bottom Line: Continue allocating duration risk for global government bond portfolios in favor of countries where central banks will have difficulty raising interest rates (Australia, U.K., Japan core Europe) relative to countries where rate hikes are more necessary and likely to happen (U.S., Canada). Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.ecbstaffprojections201809.en.pdf 2 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Will Rising Wages Cause An Imminent Change In Policy Direction In Europe And Japan?", dated October 5th 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Rising U.S. bond yields will continue to put downward pressure on global stocks in the near term, but will not trigger an equity bear market until rates reach restrictive territory. We are still at least 12 months away from that point. The blowout in Italian bond yields has further to go, which will also weigh on global risk assets. Nevertheless, we would buy BTPs for a tactical trade if the 10-year yield rose above 4%, because at that level EU policymakers will call out the fire engines. We downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral in June, while maintaining our bias for DM stocks over EM stocks. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish again if global stocks were to fall by 8% from current levels. Remain cyclically underweight interest rate duration. We would move to neutral on duration if the U.S. 10-year yield were to rise to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Feature Bond Yields: Up, Up, And Away Global risk assets remained on the back foot this week. The MSCI All-Country World stock market index has now fallen by 6.3% in dollar terms since last Wednesday. Even the mighty S&P 500 has finally buckled under the pressure. The vulnerability of U.S. stocks had been accumulating beneath the surface for some time, as evidenced by the fact that the advance-decline line has been deteriorating since the late summer. The small cap Russell 2000 is down 11.3% from its August 31st highs (Charts 1A& 1B). Chart 1ABreadth Deteriorated In The Lead-Up To The Correction Chart 1BStocks Under Pressure Bond yields usually fall when equities swoon. This time around, it is the increase in bond yields itself that has undermined stocks. In the U.S., yields have risen in response to better-than-expected growth, a wider budget deficit, rising oil prices, and an increasingly hawkish Fed. In Italy, worries about debt sustainability have been the primary driver of rising yields. Neither factor spells doom for global risk assets. However, a period of indigestion is likely over the coming weeks, which could see global equities go down before they go up again. The U.S. Economy: Too Much Winning? We have argued for much of this year that investors were underappreciating the extent to which the Federal Reserve can raise rates without choking off growth. The past few weeks have seen a growing recognition among investors that the Fed may be behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. This has led to a steepening in the expected path of U.S. short-term rates, which, together with an increase in the term premium, have pushed up yields at the longer-dated maturities. Both better economic data and Fedspeak contributed to the bond sell-off. On the data front, the non-manufacturing ISM index clocked in at 61.6. The all-important employment component of the index hit a record high. Confirming the encouraging labor market signal from the ISM, the unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.68% in September. While average hourly earnings ticked down to 2.75% on a year-over-year basis, this was entirely due to base effects. On a month-over-month basis, average hourly earnings have risen by 0.3% for three straight months. If this trend continues, the year-over-year rate will rise to 3.2% by the end of this year. Tellingly, recent wage growth has been concentrated among workers at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 2). This is important because not only do the wages of low-income workers correlate better with labor market slack than those of high-income workers, but low-income workers are also more likely to spend the bulk of their paychecks. Chart 2Wage Growth Has Accelerated At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Higher wage growth will boost consumer spending. Indeed, it is probable that consumption will rise more than income, given that the personal savings rate has plenty of scope to fall from the current elevated level of 6.6%. Rising wages will incentivize companies to invest more in labor-saving technologies, translating into an increase in capital spending.1 Add in ongoing fiscal stimulus, and we have a recipe for an overheated economy. Starstruck No More As of today, the market has priced in one Fed rate hike in December but only two rate hikes in 2019 (Chart 3). Investors expect no rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. That still seems implausible to us, which suggests that the bond sell-off has further to go. Chart 3The Market Still Thinks The Fed Can't Raise Rates Above 3% In contrast to the past, the Fed no longer seems interested in talking down rate expectations. Speaking with Judy Woodruff at The Atlantic Festival, Chairman Powell stated the Fed "may go past neutral, but we are a long way from neutral at this point, probably."2 Even uber-dove Chicago Fed President Charles Evans appears to have jettisoned his worries about deflation, noting in a speech last Wednesday that "I am more comfortable with the inflation outlook today than I have been for the past several years."3 The Fed has also increasingly downplayed the importance of estimates of the neutral rate of interest, the concept on which the long-term "dots" in the Summary of Economic Projections are based. The Fed's new mantra is that economic data, rather than some theoretical model, should guide monetary policy. Ironically, it was New York Fed President John Williams, who developed one of the most widely used models of r-star, the eponymously named Holston-Laubach-Williams model, that best articulated the Fed's position. At a speech last Monday, Williams argued that the neutral rate of interest, or r-star, has "gotten too much attention in commentary about Fed policy." He went on to say that "Back when interest rates were well below neutral, r-star appropriately acted as a pole star for navigation. But, as we have gotten closer to the range of estimates of neutral, what appeared to be a bright point of light is really a fuzzy blur, reflecting the inherent uncertainty in measuring r-star."4 Trump And Bonds President Trump was quick to blame the Fed for this week's stock market sell-off. Within the span of 24 hours, he used the words "crazy," "loco," "ridiculous," "too cute," "too aggressive," and "big mistake" to describe recent Fed policy. We doubt Trump's rhetoric will have any immediate effect on Fed decision-making. But even if it did sway the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes, the result will be higher bond yields, not lower yields. This is simply because any further delays in raising rates will lead to even more overheating, and ultimately, higher inflation and the need for higher rates down the road. Bond Sell-Off Will Produce A Correction In Stocks, Not A Bear Market At the height of this week's bond sell-off, the 10-year Treasury yield breached its 200-month moving average for the first time since ... October 1987 (Chart 4). While that sounds pretty ominous, keep in mind that the 10-year yield had reached almost 10% on the eve of the 1987 stock market crash, or about 6% in real terms. Chart 4Two Lines Meet After Three Decades As my colleague, Doug Peta, discussed two weeks ago, it is the level of interest rates that tends to matter more for stocks rather than the change in rates.5 Specifically, equity returns tend to be lowest at times when monetary policy is already in restrictive territory (Chart 5 and Tables 1 and 2). That was the case in 1987. It is not the case today. Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health... Table 2...Especially In Real Terms The fact that stocks do worse in environments where monetary policy is tight makes perfect sense. A restrictive monetary policy is usually a prelude to a recession. As Chart 6 illustrates, bear markets and recessions almost always coincide, with the latter usually leading the former by about six-to-twelve months. None of our favorite leading recession indicators are flashing red now (Chart 7). Even the yield curve has steepened in recent weeks. Chart 6Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Still, higher long-term bond yields do reduce the long-term attractiveness of stocks compared with bonds. The S&P 500 earnings yield has risen modestly since 2016 due to the fact that earnings have grown somewhat more quickly than equity prices. However, the U.S. real 10-year yield has surged by almost 120 basis points over this period. On balance, this has caused the equity risk premium to decline (Chart 8).6 In order to bring the equity risk premium back down to mid-2016 levels, the S&P 500 would need to fall by about 15% from today's levels. We do not expect stocks to fall by that much, partly because the economic environment is more robust than back then, but a further drop of 5%-to-10% from current levels is certainly plausible. Chart 7A U.S. Recession Is Not Imminent Chart 8Stocks Versus Bonds Italy: Heading For A Debt Crisis? The rise in Treasury yields has reduced the attractiveness of other global government bond markets, causing them to sell off in sympathy. Notably, German bund yields have increased by 33 basis points since their May lows (Chart 9). Chart 9Global Bond Yields Moving Higher Rising German bund yields are bad news for Italy. All things equal, a higher "risk free" bund yield implies a higher Italian bond yield. To make matters worse, as Italian borrowing costs have risen, the perceived likelihood that Italy will be unable to repay its debt has increased. This has caused the spread between German bunds and Italian BTPs to widen, thereby magnifying the effect on Italian bond yields from the increase in risk-free yields. All this has happened at the worst possible moment. Italy's populist government and the European Commission are locked in a battle of wills over next year's budget. The Italian government is targeting a fiscal deficit of 2.4% of GDP for 2019, compared with a deficit of 0.8% that the outgoing caretaker government had proposed in May. Strictly speaking, the new deficit target is still consistent with the 3% limit under the Maastricht Treaty. Nevertheless, it is still causing consternation in Brussels. There are at least three reasons for this: While the government's program has a lot of specifics about how it will increase the deficit - more public investment; a universal minimum income scheme; the ability to retire earlier than under current law; corporate tax cuts; no VAT hike in 2019, etc. - it does not specify which items in the budget will be cut. The program also provides few details on revenue measures, other than proposing a one-off tax amnesty, which will arguably reduce tax receipts over the long haul. The proposed budget assumes real GDP growth of 1.5% in 2019. This is higher than the May projection of 1.4%, and well above the IMF's most recent projection of 1%. The government's real GDP projections for 2020-21 are also about 0.7 percentage points above the IMF's estimates. While Italy's proposed fiscal deficit is below the Maastricht Treaty limit, its current debt-to-GDP ratio of 132% is well above the ceiling of 60% (Chart 10). This implies that Italy should be aiming for a smaller deficit target than what it is currently proposing. Chart 10Italy's Public Debt Mountain We expect the Italian government to ultimately acquiesce to the EU's demands, but not before the bond vigilantes have pushed them into a corner. For their part, the EU establishment would love nothing more than to embarrass the Five Star-Lega coalition in order to send a message to voters across Europe about the dangers of voting for populist parties. This means that the Italian 10-year yield may need to break above 4% - the level at which Italian banks would likely be technically insolvent based on the market value of their BTP holdings - before a compromise is reached. We would put on a tactical trade to buy 10-year BTPs at that level, but not before then. Investment Conclusions Goldilocks will survive, but the next couple of months will be challenging. Our soon-to-be-launched MacroQuant model is signaling a bearish outlook for stocks over the next 30 days (Chart 11). On the bond side, the model currently pegs the fair value for the U.S. 10-year yield at 3.7% (Chart 12). Bond sentiment is quite bearish at the moment, which makes a brief countertrend bond rally quite likely. However, the cyclical trend in yields remains to the upside. Chart 11MacroQuant* Recommends That Caution Is Warranted Towards Equities Chart 12MacroQuant Sees 10-Year Treasury Yields Still Below Fair Value We stated last week that investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets. We continue to favor this more cautious stance. For the first time in over a decade, short-term U.S. rates are above the dividend yield on the S&P 500 (Chart 13). Holding a bit more cash is finally an attractive option, at least for U.S.-based investors. Chart 13Cash Anyone? If the sell-off in global equities continues, it will present a buying opportunity, given that the next major global economic downturn is probably at least another two years away. Barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on stocks again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% from current levels.7 We would recommend that investors move from an underweight to a neutral interest rate duration position in global bond portfolios if the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield rose to 3.7%. We are still bullish on the dollar, but would shift to neutral if the DXY rose above 100. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that additional investment spending will raise aggregate supply, but normally it takes a while for that to happen. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see "WATCH: Powell says Fed is focused on 'controlling the controllable,' not politics," PBS News Hour, October 3, 2018; and Jeff Cox, "Powell says we're 'a long way' from neutral on interest rates, indicating more hike are coming," CNBC, October 3, 2018. 3 Charles Evans, "Monetary Policy 2.0?" OMFIF City Lecture on the U.S. Economic Outlook, London, England, October 3, 2018. 4 John C. Williams, "Remarks at the 42nd Annual Central Banking Seminar," Bank for International Settlements, October 1, 2018. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "When Will Higher Rates Hurt Stocks?" dated September 24, 2018; and Special Report, "Revisiting The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated September 3, 2018. 6 For this exercise, we define the equity risk premium as the difference between the S&P 500 earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year bond yield (using CPI swaps as our measure of expected inflation). 7 The perils of writing a report during a week when markets are moving fast. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Set your overall investment strategy with two 'rules of 4' based on 10-year bond yields: If either the Italian BTP or the sum of the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB stays above 4 percent, then sell equities and buy bonds. If both the Italian BTP and the sum of the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB are in the 3-4 percent range, then remain broadly neutral. If both the Italian BTP and the sum of the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB fall below 3 percent, then buy equities and sell bonds. Stay neutral to Italy's MIB and Italian banks for the time being. Among the mainstream European equity markets our top pick remains France's CAC. Feature Many people believe that Italy has one of the world's most indebted economies, but this widely-held belief is wrong. Although Italy's public indebtedness is high, Italy's private indebtedness is one of the lowest in the world (Chart of the Week). This means that Italy's total indebtedness is less than that of France and the U.K., and broadly similar to that of the U.S. (Chart I-2 - Chart 1-5).1 Chart of the WeekItaly's Private Sector Indebtedness Is One Of The Lowest In The World Chart I-2Italy: Total Indebtedness = 260% Of GDP Chart I-3France: Total Indebtedness = 305% Of GDP Chart I-4U.K.: Total Indebtedness = 280% Of GDP Chart I-5U.S.: Total Indebtedness = 250% Of GDP The Myth Of Italian Indebtedness An economy's debt sustainability depends on its total indebtedness, and not on its public indebtedness or its private indebtedness in isolation. Debt becomes unsustainable when the marginal extra euro of debt results in misallocation of resources and mal-investment. At this point, the extra debt adds nothing to growth or, worse, it subtracts from growth. Therefore, debt reaches its sustainable limit when the economy has exhausted all productive uses for it. But it does not matter whether these productive uses are funded with private debt or with public debt. For example, successful economies require investment in high-quality healthcare and education. Some economies fund this with private debt, while others fund it with public debt. This means that if productive private indebtedness is low, there is more scope for productive public indebtedness. The crucial point is that Italy has extremely low private indebtedness, which means that it can afford relatively high public indebtedness before reaching the limit of debt sustainability. Right now, this is especially true because the Italian banking system remains dysfunctional, preventing the private sector from borrowing (Chart I-6). Under these circumstances, the Italian government can borrow the private sector's excess savings and debt repayments and put them to highly productive use - which will paradoxically reduce the deficit in the long term. Chart I-6Italy's Private Sector Is Not Borrowing Hence, the M5S/Lega government is following excellent economic policy in proposing a modest increase in the fiscal deficit in 2019. An appropriately sized and targeted fiscal stimulus is exactly what Italy needs right now. But this excellent economic policy will take time to bear fruit and show up in Italy's growth and deficit data. Italy's big problem is that bond vigilantes do not wait, they shoot first and ask questions later. Italy Is Especially Vulnerable To Bond Vigilantes Italy is also a world leader in running primary surpluses (Chart I-7 and Table I-1). In plain English, this means that the Italian government spends considerably less than it receives, if interest payments are excluded. Chart I-7Italy Is A World Leader In Running Primary Surpluses Table I-1Italy Has Consistently Run Primary Surpluses Put differently, Italy's government deficit results not from its operational spending relative to its income, but from the interest payments on its debt. This makes Italy especially vulnerable to the bond vigilantes. If the bond vigilantes distort Italy's interest rate, they can tip the Italian government into financial distress, even if that distress is not justified by the economic fundamentals. Is this a real risk? Sadly, yes. The euro debt crisis was essentially a liquidity crisis which resulted from bond vigilantes running amok. When irrational markets refuse to lend to sovereigns at a fair interest rate, maturing debt has to be refinanced at a penalising interest rate, causing an undeserved deterioration in the government's finances. Thereby, the irrational fear of insolvency becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Italy has an additional problem. When Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of the banking system's euro 350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' fragile balance sheets. If a bank's equity capital no longer covers its net non-performing loans (NPLs), investors get nervous. In this regard, the largest Italian banks now have euro 160 billion of equity capital against euro 130 billion of net NPLs, implying a cushion of euro 30 billion (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds ##br##Net NPLs By Euro 30 Bn... So the markets would start to worry about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond portfolios sustained a loss of €30 billion. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4 percent (Chart I-9).2 Chart I-9...The Excess Would Disappear If The 10-Year BTP Yield Stayed Above 4% The ECB solved the euro debt crisis at a stroke by committing to act as lender of last resort to distressed sovereigns at an 'undistorted' interest rate. Indeed, the commitment alone was enough to defeat the bond vigilantes without the ECB spending a single cent from its Outright Monetary Transaction (OMT) program.3 But recall that the ECB only threatened its firepower when the 2-year Spanish Bono yield had breached 6.5 percent and the 10-year yield had breached 7.5 percent. It follows that if the 10-year Italian BTP yield breached 4 percent, the yield would be high enough to hurt the Italian banks, but not nearly high enough for any powerful intervention from the ECB. Hence, the 10-year BTP yield at 4 percent is the level at which we would return to a pro-defensive strategy. Conversely, a level below 3 percent would create some margin of safety providing one precondition for a more pro-cyclical investment stance. In the meantime, the current level at 3.3 percent justifies a neutral cyclical stance to Italy's MIB and Italian banks. Among the mainstream European equity markets our top pick remains France's CAC. The Connection Between Bubbles And Liquidity Crises Bubble formation may seem to have no connection with a liquidity crisis but the two phenomena are closely related. Bubble formation is simply a brewing liquidity crisis resulting from irrational euphoria rather than irrational fear. A bubble forms when value investors stop investing on the basis of a valuation framework. Instead, they get lured into the momentum herd that is participating in a strong rally, and the additional buy orders fuel the euphoria. However, once all of the value investors have joined the momentum herd, and a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a sell order, the market will suffer a liquidity crisis. There are no buyers left! And finding one might require a substantial reversal in the price to attract an ultra-long-term deep value investor. As regular readers know, fractal analysis measures whether the herding behaviour in any financial instrument is becoming excessive. The analysis suggests that developed market equities are not yet at the tipping point of excessive euphoria that signalled the last two trend exhaustions in May 2017 and January 2018 (Chart I-10). But this does not mean that there are clear blue skies ahead. Chart I-10Developed Market Equities Are Not Yet At A Trend Exhaustion The danger is not that the rich valuation is irrationally excessive, but that it is hyper-sensitive to bond yields. At low bond yields, bonds offer no price upside but substantial price downside. Confronted with this increased riskiness of bonds, equity returns justifiably collapse to the feeble returns offered by bonds with no additional 'risk premium', giving equity valuations an exponential uplift. But if bond yields normalise, the process goes into vicious reverse - the rich valuation of equities must decline as exponentially as it rose. We have defined the danger point as when the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and JGB breaches and stays above 4 percent. In summary, set your overall investment strategy with two 'rules of 4' based on 10-year bond yields: If either the Italian BTP or the sum of the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB stays above 4 percent, then sell equities and buy bonds. If both the Italian BTP and the sum of the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB are in the 3-4 percent range, then remain broadly neutral. If both the Italian BTP and the sum of the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB fall below 3 percent, then buy equities and sell bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Indebtedness defined as a share of GDP. 2 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 3 The ECB's Outright Monetary Transaction (OMT) program was created in 2012 in response to the euro debt crisis and facilitates the ECB's lender of last resort function to solvent but illiquid sovereign borrowers. Fractal Trading Model* We are pleased to report that our long China/short India trade achieved its 9% profit target and is now closed. This week, we note that the underperformance of the Eurostoxx50 versus the Nikkei225 is technically stretched, with a 65-day fractal dimension approaching the limit which signaled a very recent trend reversal. Hence, this week's recommended trade is long Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225. The profit target is 3.5% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Macro outlook: Global growth will continue to decelerate into early next year on the back of brewing EM stresses and an underwhelming policy response from China. Equities: Stay neutral for now, while underweighting EM relative to DM stocks. Within DM, overweight the U.S. in dollar terms. Bonds: Global bond yields may dip in the near term, but the longer-term path is firmly higher. Currencies: The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end. EM currencies will suffer the most. Commodities: Favor oil over industrial metals. Precious metals will also remain under pressure until the dollar peaks next year, before beginning a major bull run as inflation accelerates. Feature I. Economic Outlook The Fed Can Hike A Lot More If 2017 was the year of a synchronized global growth recovery, 2018 is turning out to be a year where desynchronization is once again the name of the game. The U.S. economy continues to fire on all cylinders, while much of the rest of the world is struggling to stay afloat. The divergence in economic outcomes has been mirrored in central bank policy. The Fed is now hiking rates once per quarter whereas most other major central banks are still sitting on their hands. How high can U.S. rates go? The answer is a lot higher than investors anticipate. Market participants currently expect the Fed funds rate to rise to 2.37% by the end of this year and 2.84% by the end of 2019. No rate hikes are priced in for 2020 and beyond. The Fed dots are somewhat higher than market expectations (Chart I-1). The median dot rises to about 3.4% in 2020-21, but then falls back to 3% over the Fed's longer-run horizon. Both investors and the Fed have apparently bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They seem convinced that rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession. While we have a lot of sympathy for Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP (Chart I-2). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Chart I-1Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart I-2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary In ##br##The U.S. Than In The Euro Area Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is increasing faster than GDP (Chart I-3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is ##br##Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart I-4U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart I-5). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers' pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current level of household net worth (Chart I-6). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart I-5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart I-6The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 An Absence Of Major Financial Imbalances Will Allow The Fed To Keep Raising Rates The past three recessions were all caused by financial market overheating rather than economic overheating. The 1991 recession was mainly the consequence of the Savings and Loan crisis, compounded by the spike in oil prices leading up to the Gulf War. The 2001 recession stemmed from the dotcom bust. The Great Recession was triggered by the housing bust. Today, it is difficult to point to any clear imbalances in the economy. True, housing activity has been weak for much of the year. However, unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record-low levels (Chart I-7). Tight supply will limit downside risks to both construction and home prices. On the demand side, low unemployment, high consumer confidence, and a rebound in the rate of new household formation should help the sector. Despite elevated home prices in some markets, the average monthly payment that homeowners must make to service their mortgage is quite low by historic standards (Chart I-8). The quality of mortgage lending has also been very high over the past decade, which reduces the risk of a sudden credit crunch (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Low Housing Inventories Will Support ##br##Home Prices And Construction Chart I-8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart I-9Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Unlike housing debt, there are more reasons to be concerned about corporate debt. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen to record-high levels. So-called "covenant-lite" loans now make up the bulk of corporate leveraged loan issuance. While there is no doubt that the corporate debt market is the weakest link in the U.S. financial sector, some perspective is in order. U.S. corporate debt levels are quite low by global standards. Corporate debt in the euro area is more than 30 points higher as a percent of GDP than in the United States (Chart I-10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart I-11). While this ratio will fall as interest rates rise, this will not happen very quickly. Most U.S. corporate debt is at fixed rates and average maturities have been rising. This reduces both rollover risk and the sensitivity of debt-servicing costs to higher short-term rates. Chart I-10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart I-11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average An increasing share of U.S. corporate debt is held by non-leveraged investors. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart I-12). This is important, because what makes a spike in corporate defaults so damaging is not the direct impact this has on the economy, but the second-round effects rising defaults have on financial sector stability. In any case, we already had a dress rehearsal for what a corporate debt scare might look like. Credit spreads spiked in 2015. Default rates rose, but the knock-on effects to the financial system were minimal. This suggests that corporate America could handle a fair bit of monetary tightening without buckling under the pressure. The Fed And The Dollar If the Fed is able to raise rates substantially more than the market is discounting while most central banks cannot, the short-term interest rate spread between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen. History suggests that this will produce a stronger dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Banks Have Been Reducing Their ##br##Exposure To The Corporate Sector Chart I-13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved ##br##In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign-exchange market in order to drive down the value of the greenback. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to occur, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck those dollars back out of the system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels, both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart I-14). The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. The fiscal deficit stands at nearly 8% of GDP and government debt has soared from 60% of GDP in 2013 to 84% of GDP at present (Chart I-15). Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. This could cause the real to weaken much more than it already has. Chart I-14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart I-15Brazil's Perilous Fiscal Position Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. The stimulus measures in 2015 followed an even greater wave of stimulus in 2009. While these stimulus measures invigorated China's economy and helped put a floor under global growth, they came at a price: China's debt-to-GDP ratio has swollen from 140% in 2008 to over 250% at present, which has endangered financial stability (Chart I-16). Excess capacity has also increased. This can be seen in the dramatic rise in the capital-to-output ratio. It can also be seen in the fact that the rate of return on assets within the Chinese state-owned enterprise sector, which has been the main source of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart I-17). Chart I-16China: Debt And Capital ##br##Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart I-17China: Rate Of Return On Assets ##br##Below Borrowing Costs For SOEs Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not turn sour. Unfortunately, that is becoming an impossible feat. Chart I-18China Saves A Lot The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46% (Chart I-18). As a matter of arithmetic, national savings must be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. Now that the former strategy has run into diminishing returns, the Chinese authorities will need to concentrate on the latter. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. Above-average productivity growth has pushed up the fair value of China's real exchange rate over time. However, the currency still looks expensive relative to its long-term trend line (Chart I-19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart I-20 shows that USD/CNY has moved broadly in line with the one-year swap spread between the U.S. and China. The spread was about 3% earlier this year. Today, it stands at only 0.6%. As the Fed continues to raise rates, the spread will narrow further, taking the yuan down with it. Chart I-19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart I-20USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Unlike standard Chinese fiscal/credit easing, a stimulus strategy focused on weakening the yuan would hurt other emerging markets by undermining their competitiveness in relation to China. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. The 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to track GDP growth (Chart I-21).2 Euro area credit growth accelerated over the course of 2017, but has been broadly stable this year. As a result, the credit impulse has fallen, taking GDP growth down with it. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to increase unless credit growth starts rising again. So far, there is little sign that this is about to happen. According to the latest euro area bank lending survey, while banks continue to ease standards for business loans, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past. A net 3% of banks eased lending standards in the second quarter, compared to 8% in the first quarter. Loan demand growth has been fairly stable. This suggests that loan growth will remain positive, but is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Worries about the health of European banks will further constrain credit growth. European banks in general, and Spanish banks in particular, have significant exposure to the most vulnerable emerging markets (Chart I-22). Chart I-21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart I-22Spain Most Exposed To Vulnerable EMs Concerns about the ability of the Italian government to service its debt obligations will also restrain bank lending. Investors breathed a sigh of relief last month when the Italian government signaled a greater willingness to pare back next year's proposed budget deficit, in accordance with the dictates of the European Commission. Tensions remain, however, as evidenced by the fact that the ten-year spread between BTPs and German bunds is still 120 basis points higher than in April (Chart I-23). The European political establishment is terrified of the rise in populism across the region and would love nothing more than to see Italy's populist parties implode. This means that any help from the ECB and the European Commission will only arrive once a full-fledged crisis is underway. Anyway, it is far from clear that a smaller budget deficit would actually translate into a lower government debt-to-GDP ratio. Like China, Italy also has a private sector that saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. The prior government's pension cuts have also incentivized people to save more for their retirement. The result is a private sector savings-investment surplus that stood at 5% of GDP in 2017 compared to close to breakeven a decade ago (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart I-24Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its excess production because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor does it have the ability to devalue its currency to gain a quick competitiveness boost. This means that the Italian government has to absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings - a fancy way of saying that it has to run a large budget deficit. This has effectively been Japan's strategy for over two decades. However, unlike Japan, Italy does not have a lender of last resort that can unconditionally buy government debt. This raises the risk that Italy's debt woes will resurface, either because the government abandons austerity measures, or because the lack of fiscal support causes nominal GDP to stagnate, making it all but impossible for the country to outgrow its debt burden. Receding Policy Puts The discussion above suggests that many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on are in the process of having their strike price marked down to deeper out-of-the-money levels. Yes, the Fed will ease off on rate hikes if U.S. growth is at risk of stalling out completely. However, now that the labor market has reached full employment, the Fed will welcome modestly slower growth. Remember that there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point without a recession taking place (Chart I-25). The further the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU, the more difficult it will be for the Fed to achieve the proverbial soft landing. Chart I-25Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Likewise, the "China stimulus put" - the presumption that most investors have that the Chinese authorities will launch a barrage of fiscal and credit easing at the first sign of slower growth - has become less reliable in light of the government's competing objectives namely reducing debt growth and excess capacity. The same goes for the "ECB put." Yes, the ECB will bail out Italy if the entire European project appears at risk. But spreads may need to blow out before the cavalry arrives. Meanwhile, just as the aforementioned policy puts are receding, new policy risks are rising to the fore, chief among them protectionism. We expect the trade war to heat up, with the Trump administration increasingly directing its ire at China. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or Beijing? No trophy for getting that answer right. II. Financial Markets Global Equities The combination of slower global growth, rising economic vulnerabilities outside the U.S., and a more challenging policy environment caused us to downgrade our view on global equities from overweight to neutral in June,3 while reiterating our preference for developed market equities relative to EM stocks. For now, we are comfortable with our bearish view towards emerging market stocks. While EM equities have cheapened, they are not yet at washed out levels (Chart I-26). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart I-27). Chart I-26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart I-27EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound At some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. At that point, EM stocks will rebound. European and Japanese equities should also start to outperform the U.S., given their more cyclical nature. As far as the absolute direction of the S&P 500 is concerned, the next few months could be challenging. U.S. stocks have been able to decouple from those in the rest of the world, but this state of affairs may not last. Recall that the S&P 500 fell by 22% peak-to-trough between July 20 and October 8, 1998, in what otherwise was a massive bull market. We do not know if there is another Long-Term Capital Management lurking around the corner, but if there is, a temporary selloff in U.S. stocks may be hard to avoid. Such a selloff would present a buying opportunity over a horizon of 12-to-18 months. If we are correct that cyclical forces have lifted the neutral rate of interest, it will take a while for monetary policy to reach restrictive territory. This means that both fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative at least for the next 18 months. As such, the S&P 500 may not peak until 2020. Appendix A - Chart I presents a stylized diagram of where we think global equities are going. It incapsulates three phases: 1) a challenging period over the next six months, driven by EM weakness; 2) a blow-off rally in equities starting in the middle of next year; 3) and finally, a recession-induced bear market beginning in late-2020. Appendix B also presents our valuation charts, which highlight that long-term return prospects are better outside the United States. Fixed Income After advocating for a long duration strategy for much of the post-crisis recovery, BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016, the very same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Cyclically and structurally, we continue to expect U.S. bond yields to rise more than the market is discounting. As noted above, the Fed is underestimating how high rates will need to go before they reach restrictive territory. This means that the Fed will end up behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise above the Fed's comfort zone. Granted, the Fed is willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot. However, a core PCE reading above 2.3%, which is at the top end of the range of the Fed's own forecast, would prompt the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes. A bear flattening of the yield curve - a situation where long-term yields rise, but short-term rates go up even more - would be highly likely in that environment. Over a shorter-term horizon spanning the next six months, the outlook for yields is more benign. The combination of a stronger dollar, slower global growth, and flight-to-quality flows into the Treasury market from vulnerable emerging markets can cap yields. Add to this the fact that sentiment towards bonds is currently extremely bearish (Chart I-28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Chart I-28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish Developed market bond yields in general are likely to follow the direction of U.S. yields, both on the upside and the downside, but in a more muted manner. Outside the periphery, euro area yields have less scope to fall in the near term given that they are already so low. European yields also have less room to rise once global growth bottoms next year because the neutral rate of interest is much lower in the euro area than in the United States. Ironically, a more dovish ECB would help reduce Italian bond yields, as higher inflation is critical for increasing Italian nominal GDP. Since labor market slack is still elevated in Italy, continued monetary stimulus would also lift wages in core Europe more than in Italy, helping to boost Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area. Japanese yields have plenty of scope to rise over the long haul. An aging population is pushing more people into retirement, which will cause the national savings rate to fall further. A decline in the savings pool will increase the neutral rate of interest in Japan. Instead of raising the policy rate, the Japanese authorities will let the economy overheat, generating inflation in the process. This will cause the yield curve to steepen, particularly at the very long end (e.g., beyond 10 years) which is the part of the yield curve that is the least susceptible to the BoJ's yield curve control regime. Appendix A - Chart II shows our expectations for the major government bond markets over the coming years. Turning to credit markets, high-yield credit typically underperforms in the latter innings of business-cycle expansions, a period when the Fed is raising rates. Thus, while we do not think that U.S. corporate debt levels will be a major source of systemic financial risk for the broader economy, this is hardly a reason to be overweight spread-product. A more cautious stance towards credit outside the U.S. is also warranted. Currencies And Commodities The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end, as EM tensions intensify and hopes of a massive credit/fiscal-fueled Chinese stimulus package fizzle. EM currencies will weaken the most against the dollar over the next three-to-six months, but the euro and, to a lesser extent, the yen, will also come under pressure. Granted, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency, but if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to current levels, the greenback will remain well supported. Consider the dollar's value against the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.20% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.12%, a difference of 208 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 82 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.12 range over the next six months is probable. Sterling will remain hostage to Brexit negotiations. It is impossible to know how talks will evolve, but our bias is to take a somewhat pound-positive view. The main reason is that support for Brexit has faded (Chart I-29). Opinion polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "bremain" side would almost certainly prevail. Lacking public support for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that British negotiators could simply walk away from the table. This reduces the odds of a "hard Brexit" outcome. Indeed, a second referendum that leads to a "no-Brexit" verdict remains a distinct possibility. The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart I-30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart I-29When Bremorse Sets In Chart I-30China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Russia maintaining production discipline, but U.S. sanctions against Iran threaten to weigh on global crude supply. Further reduction in Venezuela's oil output, as well as potential disruptions to Libyan or Iraqi exports, could also boost oil prices. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. While AUD/CAD has weakened in recent months, the Aussie dollar is still somewhat expensive against the loonie based on our long-term valuation model (Chart I-31). We also see an increasing chance that Canada will negotiate a revamped trade deal with the U.S., as Trump focuses his attention more on China. Should this happen, it will remove the NAFTA break-up risk discount embedded in the Canadian dollar. Finally, a few words on precious metals. Precious metals typically struggle during periods when the dollar is appreciating (Chart I-32). Consequently, we would not be eager buyers of gold or other precious metals until the dollar peaks, most likely around the middle of next year. As inflation starts to accelerate in late-2019 and in 2020, gold will finally move decisively higher. Chart I-31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat ##br##Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart I-32Gold Won't Shine Until The Dollar Peaks Appendix A - Chart III and Chart IV present an illustration of where the major currencies and commodities are heading. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy September 28, 2018 Next Report: October 25, 2018 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too stimulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the personal savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.47% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.52 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.52/(1.0208)^30=0.82 today. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A CHART IMarket Outlook: Equities APPENDIX A CHART IIMarket Outlook: Bonds APPENDIX A CHART IIIMarket Outlook: Currencies APPENDIX A CHART IVMarket Outlook: Commodities APPENDIX B Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. II. Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks? Per the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, growth has been outperforming value for over 11 years, the longest stretch in the history of the series. Growth's extended winning streak has split investors into two camps: those who believe that value is finished because of overexposure and shortened investor timeframes, and those who are trying to identify the point at which reversion to the mean will ensue. In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are poor proxies for true value. Their methodology strays quite far from the principles enumerated by Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, and Fama and French, the researchers who demonstrated that lower-priced stocks have outperformed over time. The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using simplistic metrics that introduce considerable sector bias, reducing the difference between growth and value to a binary choice between Tech and Financials. Using tools developed by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service, we create sector-neutral U.S. value and growth indexes that correct for the off-the-shelf indexes' flaws, and broaden the range of metrics Fama and French employed to make style distinctions. The ETS-derived indexes appear to better distinguish between value and growth stocks. The ETS value-versus-growth portfolio beat its Fama and French counterpart by four percentage points annually over its 22-year life. We join our custom value and growth indexes to Fama and French's to study the impact of macro variables on relative style performance over time for the purpose of gaining insight into the most opportune points to shift between styles. Relative style performance has not corresponded consistently or robustly enough with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad market direction to support reliable style-decision rules. We find that monetary policy settings, as defined by our stylized fed funds rate cycle, are a consistently reliable predictor of relative style performance. Per the fed funds rate cycle, tight policy is most conducive to value outperformance. From this perspective, value's decade-long slump is not a surprise, given that the ultra-accommodative tide has been lifting all boats. There is no rush to increase value exposure while policy remains easy, but investors should look to load up on value once policy becomes tight, using the metrics in our ETS model to identify true value stocks. We expect that the policy inflection will occur sometime in the second half of 2019, or the first half of 2020. Growth stocks have been on a tear for the longest stretch in the history of the series, based on the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, even if their gains haven't yet matched the magnitude of the 1990s (Chart II-1). It is no surprise, then, that growth stocks are as expensive as they have ever been, outside of the tech-bubble era in the late 1990s. Many investors are thus wondering if the next "big trade" is to bet on an extended reversion to the mean during which value regains the ground it has given up. Chart II-1A Lost Decade For Value Stocks In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are not very good at differentiating growth from value stocks. Trends in relative performance have much more to do with sector performance than intrinsic value, making the indexes a poor proxy for investors who are truly interested in selecting stocks based on their value and growth profiles. We create U.S. value and growth indexes that are unaffected by sector performance, using stock selection software provided by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service. The results will surprise readers who are used to dealing with canned measures of value and growth. What Is Value Investing? Value investing principles have been around at least since the days when Benjamin Graham was a money manager himself. Style investing has been a part of the asset-management lexicon for four decades. Yet there is no universally agreed-upon definition of a value stock versus a growth stock. Based on our reading of Graham's Intelligent Investor, we submit that an essential element of value investing is the identification of stocks that are temporarily trading below their intrinsic value. The temporary drag may persist for a while - stock markets can remain oblivious to fundamentals for extended stretches - but it is ultimately expected to dissipate. Value investing is a play on negative overreaction or neglect, and dedicated value investors have to be contrarians, not to mention contrarians with strong stomachs. The temporary nature of undervaluation is a recurring theme in Graham's book. The stock market's ever-present proclivity toward overreaction ensures a steady supply of value opportunities: "The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.1" "[W]hen an individual company ... begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.2" "[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.3" Graham viewed security analysis as the comparison of an issue's market price to its intrinsic value. He advised buying stocks only when they trade at a discount to intrinsic value, offering an investor a "margin of safety" that should guard against significant declines. His favorite measure for assessing intrinsic value was a sober, objective estimate of average future earnings, grossed-up by an appropriate multiple. A low price-to-average-earnings ratio was the linchpin of his margin-of-safety mantra. Decades after Graham's heyday, University of Chicago professors Eugene Fama and Kenneth French bestowed the academy's seal of approval on value investing. Their landmark 1992 paper found that low price-to-book ("P/B") stocks consistently and convincingly outperformed high P/B stocks.4 Several "growth" and "value" indexes have been developed over the years, but they bear no more than a passing resemblance to Graham's, and Fama and French's, work. It is important to realize that the off-the-shelf indexes are far from an ideal proxy for the value factor that Fama & French tried to isolate. Traditional Growth And Value Indexes Are Wanting The off-the-shelf growth and value indexes shown in Chart II-1 all share similar cyclical profiles, with only small differences in long-term returns. Given the similarity of the indexes, we will focus on Standard & Poor's/Citigroup methodology for the purposes of this report.5 The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using the following metrics: 3-year growth rates in EPS, 3-year growth rates in sales-per-share, and 12-month price momentum; along with valuation yardsticks including price-to-book, price-to-earnings, and price-to-sales. Companies with higher growth rates in earnings and sales, and better price momentum, are classified as growth stocks, while those with lower valuation multiples are considered value stocks. Several stocks are cross-listed in both indexes, which is baffling and counterproductive for an investor seeking to implement a rigorous style tilt.6 Table II-1 contains a summary of the current sector breakdowns for the S&P 500 Growth and Value indexes. Table II-2 sheds light on each index's aggregate geographical and U.S. business cycle exposure, the former of which is based on our U.S. Equity Strategy service's judgment. Table II-1Current S&P 500 Style Index Exposures Table II-2The Value Index Has Less Global ##br##And Late Cyclical Exposure Growth is currently heavily weighted in Health Care, Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors, while value has a high concentration of Financials, Energy and Consumer Staples (Table II-1). Table II-2 shows that the growth index has a clear current bias toward sectors with global economic exposure that typically outperform the broad equity market late in the business cycle. The value benchmark flips growth's global/domestic exposure, and has slightly more exposure to defensive sectors, while splitting its cyclical exposure evenly between early and late cyclicals. Sector Dominance Unfortunately, the reigning methodology creates a major problem - shifts in the relative performance of growth and value indexes are dominated by sector performance. Financials' higher debt loads, and banks' low-margin operations, depress their multiples relative to nonfinancial firms. Thus, Financials hold permanent residency in the off-the-shelf value indexes. Conversely, Tech stocks perennially account for an outsized proportion of most growth indexes' market cap. Value-versus-growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech.7 The growth/value price ratio has closely tracked the Technology/Financials price ratio since the late 1990s (Chart II-2, top panel). The correlation was much less evident before 1995, when Tech stocks accounted for a much smaller share of market capitalization. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the positive correlation between growth/value and Tech has steadily climbed over the decades to almost 1, while the correlation with Financials has become increasingly negative (currently at -0.75). Chart II-2The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance Chart II-3Style Capture In contrast, the Fama/French approach, which focuses exclusively on price-to-book while ensuring equal representation for large- and small-market-cap stocks, appears much less affected by sector skews; the growth/value index created from their data has not tracked the Tech/Financials ratio, even after 1995 (Chart II-2, second panel). Moreover, note that the extended downward trend in the Fama/French growth/value ratio is consistent with other academic research that shows that value stocks outperform growth over the long-term. The off-the-shelf indexes show the opposite, but that is because they are merely tracking the long-term outperformance of Tech relative to Financials. The bottom line is that the standard indexes incorporate flawed measures of growth and value that limit their usefulness for true style investing. Conventional Wisdom With respect to style investing and the economic cycle, the prevailing conventional wisdom holds that: Inflation - Growth stocks perform best during times of disinflation and persistently low inflation, whereas value stocks perform best during periods of accelerating inflation; Interest Rates - Periods of high and rising interest rates favor value stocks at the expense of growth; and Business Cycle - It is believed that growth stocks outperform value during recessions, because the latter tend to be more highly leveraged to the economic cycle than their growth counterparts. According to the conventional view, value stocks shine in the early and middle phases of a business cycle expansion. Growth stocks return to favor again in the late states of an expansion, when investors begin to worry about the pending end to the business cycle and are looking for reliable and consistent earnings growth. Do the traditional measures of growth and value corroborate this conventional wisdom? Chart II-4 shows that the S&P value/growth index and headline CPI inflation have both trended lower since the early 1980s, but there has been no tendency for value to outperform when inflation rises. Value has shown some tendency to outperform during rising-rate phases since the mid-1980s, but the relationship with the level of the fed funds rate is stronger than its direction, as we discuss below. The growth-over-value relationship with the business cycle is complicated by the tech bubble in the late 1990s, which heavily distorted relative sector performance. The Citigroup measure of growth began to outperform very late in the cycle and through the subsequent recession in some business cycles (1979-1981, 1989-1991, and 2007-2009; Chart II-5). The early and middle parts of the cycles, however, were a mixed bag. Chart II-4Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Chart II-5No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle The bottom line is that there appears to be some rough correspondence between the Citigroup index and the interest rate and growth cycles, but it is too variable to point to reliable rules for shifting between styles. Ultimately, determining the direction of the growth and value indexes is more about forecasting relative Tech and Financials performance than it is about identifying cheap stocks. A Better Value Approach We identify four broad shortcomings of off-the-shelf value indexes: They exclusively use trailing multiples, a rear-view mirror metric. They rely on simple price-to-book multiples, which flatter serial acquirers. They rely entirely on reported earnings, which are an imperfect proxy for cash flow. A share of stock ultimately represents a claim on its issuer's future cash flows. They make no attempt to place relative metrics into historical context. Without a mechanism to compare a particular segment's valuation relative to its history, structurally low-multiple stocks will be over-represented and structurally high-multiple stocks will be under-represented. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform provides a way of differentiating value from growth stocks that avoids these problems. The web-based platform uses 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology has outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year. The overall BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but to develop our custom value index, we use only the five valuation measures in the ETS database: trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-tangible-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. Every quarter we rank the stocks within each of the 11 sectors based on an equally-weighted composite of the five valuation measures. Note that we are using the data to rank stocks only against other stocks in the same sector. We calculate the total return from owning the top 30% of stocks by value in each sector. We do the same with the bottom 30% and refer to this as our "growth" index.8 We then compute an equally-weighted average of the total returns for the growth indexes across the 11 sectors. We do the same for the value indexes. By comparing stock valuation only to other stocks in the same sector, this approach avoids the sector composition problem suffered by the off-the-shelf measures. Chart II-6 compares the ETS value/growth total return index to the Fama/French value/growth index. Data limitations preclude comparing the two measures before 1996, but the ETS index confirms the Fama/French result that value trumps growth over the long term. The ETS index follows a similar cyclical profile to the Fama/French index from 1997 to 2009, rising and falling in tandem. The two series subsequently diverge: per the criteria ETS uses to identify value and construct an index, lower-priced stocks have outperformed higher-priced ones for most of this expansion, while the Fama/French methodology suggests the reverse. Chart II-6The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work By avoiding sector composition problems and using a wider variety of value measures, the ETS approach appears to be a superior measure of value. An investor that consistently over-weighted value stocks according to the ETS approach would have outperformed someone who did the same using the Fama methodology by an annual average of four percentage points from 1996 to 2018. The history of our ETS index only covers two recessions, limiting our ability to gauge its performance vis-Ã -vis a variety of macro factors, so we extend the ETS index back to 1926 using the Fama/French index. While joining two indexes with different methodologies is less than ideal, we feel the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit of observing growth and value relative performance across more business cycles. The top panel of Chart II-7 shows U.S. real GDP growth, shaded for recessions. The bottom panel presents our extended ETS value/growth index, shaded for declines of more than 10%. The shaded periods overlap in many, but not all, cycles (indicated by circles in the chart). That is, growth stocks have tended to outperform during economic downturns, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Chart II-7No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... Value-over-growth relative returns exhibit some directionality with the overall equity market when looking at corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%, as shaded in the top panel of Chart II-8), though it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to flag a correction in advance. The relationship weakens when considering bear markets, i.e. peak-to-trough declines of at least 20%, which can be forecast with at least some reliability.9 The bottom panel is the same as in Chart II-7; the extended ETS index, shaded for periods of significant value stock underperformance. The correspondence between the shaded periods is hardly perfect, and there does not appear to be a practical style exposure message, even if an investor could call corrections in advance. Chart II-8...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years Valuation Relative valuation also provides some useful information on positioning, though it is not always timely. Chart II-9 presents an aggregate valuation measure for the stocks in our value index relative to that of the stocks in our growth index. Value stocks are expensive relative to growth when the valuation indicator is above +1 standard deviation, and value is cheap when the indicator is less than -1 standard deviation. Historically, investors would have profited if they had over-weighted value stocks when the valuation indicator reached the threshold of undervaluation, although subsequent outperformance was delayed by as much as a year in two episodes. In contrast, the valuation indicator is not useful as a 'sell' signal for value stocks because they can remain overvalued for long periods. Value was overvalued relative to growth for much of the time between 2009 and 2016. Value stocks have cheapened since then, although they have yet to reach the undervaluation threshold. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle While relative style performance may generally lean in one direction or another in conjunction with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad equity-market performance, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is difficult to formulate any sort of rotation view between styles, and history does not inspire confidence that any such rule would generate material outperformance. The monetary policy backdrop offers a path forward. We have found the fed funds rate cycle offers a consistent guide to equity and bond returns in other contexts, and our Global ETF Strategy service has found a robust link between the policy cycle and equity factor performance.10 We segment the fed funds rate cycle into four phases, based on whether or not the Fed is hiking or cutting rates, and whether policy is accommodative or restrictive (Chart II-10). Our judgment of the state of policy is derived from comparing the fed funds rate to our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Chart II-9Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning ##br##Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Chart II-10The Fed Funds Rate Cycle As defined by Fama and French, value stocks outperform growth stocks by a considerable margin when monetary policy is restrictive (Table II-3 and Chart II-11, top panel). Considering value and growth stocks separately, both perform extremely well when policy is easy (Chart II-11, second panel), but growth stocks barely advance when policy is tight, falling far behind their value counterparts. A strategy for generalist investors may be to seek out value exposure when policy is tight, while investing without regard to styles when it is easy. Table II-3The State Of Monetary Policy Is The ##br##Best Guide To Style Performance Chart II-11The State Of Monetary Policy Drives Style Performance Investment Conclusions: U.S. equity sectors that have traditionally been considered "growth" have outperformed value sectors for an extended period. The long slump has led some investors to argue that value investing is finished, killed by a combination of overexposure and short-term performance imperatives. Other investors see value's long drought as an anomaly, and are looking for the opportune time to bet on a reversal. We are in the latter camp. The difficulty lies in finding an indicator that reliably leads value stocks' outperformance. Most macro measures are unhelpful, though broad market direction offers some insight, as stocks with low price-to-book multiples have outperformed their high-priced peers by a wide margin during bear markets. Bear markets aren't the most useful timing guide, however, because one only knows in retrospect when they begin and end. The monetary policy backdrop holds the most promise as a practical guide. Although our determination of easy or tight policy turns on the modeled estimate of a concept and should not be looked to for absolute precision, it has provided a timely, reliable guide to value outperformance. We expect the relationship will persist because of the cushion provided by less demanding multiples. Earnings and multiples surge when policy is easy, lifting all boats. It is only when policy is tight, and the tide is going out, that the margin of safety offered by lower-priced stocks yields the greatest benefit. Per our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, we are still firmly ensconced within Phase I of the policy rate cycle, and expect that we will remain there until sometime in the second half of 2019. We therefore expect that value, in Fama and French terms, will continue to underperform growth for another year. The clock is ticking for growth, though, as the expansion is in its latter stages and building inflation pressures will likely force the Fed to take a fairly hard line in this rate-hiking cycle. Once monetary policy turns restrictive, investors should hunt for value candidates using a range of valuation metrics, and combine them in a sector-neutral way, as we have via our Equity Trading Strategy service's model. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy 1 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, Harper Collins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 2 Ibid, p. 15. 3 Ibid, p. 189. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Market Returns," The Journal of Finance, Volume 47, Issue 2 (June 1992), pp. 427-465. 5 S&P currently brands its Growth and Value Indexes as S&P 500 Dow Jones Indexes, but Citigroup has the longest history of compiling S&P 500 Growth and Value Indexes, beginning in 1975, so we join the Citigroup S&P 500 style indexes to the Standard & Poor's series to obtain the maximum style-index history. We use the terms Citigroup and S&P interchangeably. 6 The Pure Value and Pure Growth indexes include only the top quartile of value and growth stocks, respectively, with no overlap between indexes, and are therefore better gauges of true style investing. 7 The Tech-versus-Financials cast of the indexes endures because all of the other sectors, ex-regulated Telecoms and Utilities, which account for too little market cap to make a difference, regularly move between the indexes as their fundamental fortunes, and investor appetites, wax and wane. The current Early Cyclical/Late Cyclical/Defensive profiles are not etched in stone and should be expected to shift, perhaps considerably, over time. 8 We created a second growth index by taking the top 30% of stocks ranked by earnings momentum. However, it made little difference to the results, so we will use the bottom 30% of stocks by value as our measure of "growth" for the purposes of this report, consistent with Fama/French methodology. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst. September 2017, available on bca.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at getf.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits remain potent enough to drown out scattered negative messages. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the low end of a multi-year range, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. Our Composite Technical Indicator is in no-man's land, not far above the zero line that marks a sell signal, but coming close to issuing a buy signal by crossing above its 9-month moving average. Our Composite Sentiment Indicator is in a healthy position that suggests that the current level of investor optimism is sustainable. On the other hand, not one of our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) Indicators is moving in the right direction. The U.S. version is still weak and slowly getting weaker; the European one has flat-lined; and our Japanese WTP extended its decline, albeit from a high level. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a sell signal. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, underlining the idea that caution is warranted. On balance, our indicators continue to suggest that the underlying supports of the U.S. equity bull market are eroding. Surging U.S. profits are papering over the cracks, and may still have some legs. Earnings surprises are at an all-time high, and the net revisions ratio remains elevated. The 10-year Treasury yield's march higher is due to run out of steam. Valuation (slightly cheap) and technicals (oversold by almost 2 standard deviations) imply that a countertrend pullback is not too far around the corner. Beyond a near-term correction, though, complacency about inflation and the Fed's ability to hike rates to at least the level of the FOMC voters' median projection points to looming capital losses. The dollar is quite expensive on a purchasing power parity basis, and its long-term outlook is not constructive, but policy and growth divergences with other major economies will likely keep the wind at its back in the near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes 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 Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy

Highlights Prediction 1: A major financial downturn will trigger the next major economic downturn, and not the other way round. Prediction 2: The straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time. But for those who can fine tune, the global long bond yield must rise a further 30-50 bps before reaching the tipping point for the global risk-asset edifice. Take short-term profits in the overweight position in 30-year government bonds. Take short-term profits in the underweight position in basic materials. Take short-term profits in the underweight positions in Italy (MIB) and Spain (IBEX) and overweight position in Denmark (OMX). Feature The twenty-first century has witnessed three major downturns: the first started in 2000; the second started in 2007 culminating in the Lehman crisis a year later; and the third started in 2011 (Chart of the Week). Today, we are going to stick our necks out and make two predictions about the century's fourth major downturn. Chart of the WeekThree Episodes When Equities Underperformed Bonds By 20 Percent Or More A major financial downturn will trigger the fourth major economic downturn. The straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time. Where The Consensus Is Very Wrong As investment strategists, our primary focus should be the financial markets rather than the economy. On this basis, we define a major downturn in terms of the markets: an episode in which equities underperform bonds by more than 20 percent over a period of more than six months.1 All the same, our market based definition of a major downturn perfectly captures the three occasions that the European economy went into recession or stagnation (Chart I-2). Does this mean that the economic downturns triggered the financial market downturns? No, quite the reverse. The onset of the three major financial downturns clearly preceded the onset of the three major economic downturns. Chart I-2Three Episodes When The Euro Area Economy ##br##Contracted Or Stagnated On reflection, this is hardly surprising. The twenty-first century's major economic downturns have all resulted from financial market distortions and fragilities: the bubble valuations of the technology, media and telecom sectors in 2000 (Chart I-3); the mispricing of U.S. mortgages and credit in 2007 (Chart I-4); and the mispricing of euro area sovereign credit risk in 2011 (Chart I-5). Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the downturns in financial markets should precede the downturns in the economy, even when both are measured in real time. Chart I-3The Major Downturns Stemmed From##br## Financial Market Distortions: The Dot Com ##br##Bubble In 1999/2000... Chart I-4...The Mispricing Of U.S. ##br##Mortgages And Credit##br## In 2007/2008... Chart I-5...And The Mispricing Of Euro Area ##br##Sovereign Credit Risk##br## In 2010/2011 Today, the consensus overwhelmingly believes that an economic downturn will cause the next major downturn in financial markets. But history has taught us time and time again that the causality is much more likely to run the other way. Why not learn the lesson? So here's our first prediction: a major financial downturn will trigger the fourth major economic downturn, and not the other way round. This prediction raises some obvious questions: what could be the major fragility in financial markets, and what could fracture it? A Sharp Rise In Bond Yields Triggered The Last Three Major Downturns Look carefully at the financial market downturns that started in 2000, 2007 and 2011, and you will see another striking similarity. In each episode, the global long bond yield rose by 60 bps or more in the months that preceded the onset of the financial market downturn: April 1999 through January 2000 (Chart I-6); March through July 2007 (Chart I-7); and October 2010 through April 2011 (Chart I-8). This strongly suggests that the spike in the bond yield was the trigger for the subsequent major downturn in financial markets. Chart I-6A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered ##br##The Major Downturn Of 2000 Chart I-7A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered##br## The Major Downturn Of 2007 And 2008 Chart I-8A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered ##br##The Major Downturn Of 2011 A sharp rise in bond yields is usually the straw that breaks the back of financial market fragilities, in (at least) one of three ways: it flushes out those actors that are reliant on cheap liquidity; it pressures interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy; and it weighs on the valuations of other assets such as equities, especially if those valuations are already extremely elevated. Which segues us neatly to the current fragility in the global financial system. As we wrote last week, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies across all asset-classes. And the total value of those global risk-assets is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy.2 We have also consistently highlighted that not only do the rich valuations of $400 trillion of risk-assets depend (inversely) on bond yields, but that this relationship is an exponential function.3 So here's our second prediction: the straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time - just as it did in 2000, 2007 and 2011. But Bond Yields Haven't Gone Up Far Enough... Yet Now comes some bullish news, at least for those who can play shorter-term moves in the market. The global long bond yield has been trapped within a tight channel and is only 20 bps up from its recent low in April (Chart I-9). Therefore, it has the scope to rise a further 30-50 bps before reaching the tipping point for the global risk-asset edifice and unleashing a 'risk-off' phase. Chart I-9In 2018, The Bond Yield Has Not Risen Sharply...Yet For those who want to fine tune their investment strategy, the journey up to that turning point would define a phase when many of this year's cyclical sector underperformances would end or even switch to a phase of modest outperformances. Bear in mind that the cyclical sector underperformances this year have been substantial: European banks have underperformed healthcare by 35 percent; global basic materials have underperformed the market by 10 percent; emerging market equities have underperformed developed market equities by 15 percent. So it is prudent to take some short-term profits, especially as these trends are likely to end, at least in the near term. Hence, three weeks ago we closed our underweight banks versus healthcare position, booking a tidy profit of 23 percent. Today, we are closing our underweight position in basic materials versus the market, booking a profit of 6 percent. In a similar vein, we are taking the modest profits in our overweight position in 30-year government bonds. Sector allocation has unavoidable implications for stock market allocation - because the mainstream stock market indexes all have dominant sector skews which determine their relative performances (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare On this basis, closing our underweight banks versus healthcare removes the justification for being underweight bank-dominant Italy (MIB) and Spain (IBEX) and the justification for being overweight healthcare-dominant Denmark (OMX). These three positions now move to neutral. While we consider our next shift, our European stock market allocation is temporarily reduced to just five positions. Overweight: France, Ireland, Switzerland. Underweight: Sweden, Norway. Finally, just to say that there will be no report next week as I will be attending our annual Investment Conference which is in Toronto this year. I look forward to seeing some of you there. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Based on the relative performance of the MSCI All Country World Index versus the JP Morgan Global Government Bond Index, both in local currency terms. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?' September 13 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Rule Of 4 For Equities And Bonds' August 2 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, we note that the very strong recent outperformance of U.S. telecoms versus U.S. autos is technically extended, reaching a fractal dimension that has previously signalled the start of a countertrend move. Hence, the recommended trade is short U.S. telecoms, long U.S. autos. Set a profit target of 9% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights German real estate and real estate equities remain a worthwhile multi-year position, especially in relative terms. The dominant stocks are Vonovia, Deutsche Wohnen, LEG, and GSW. Swedish real estate and real estate equities are likely to face harder times. The dominant stocks are Lundbergforetagen, Castellum, Fastighets, and Fabege. The structural pair-trade is long German real estate equities, short Swedish real estate equities. Italian real estate offers distressed opportunities. The long-term equity play is Covivio. We remain reluctant to own U.K. residential real estate or real estate equities. Chart of the WeekExtremes In European Real Estate Feature Nowadays, the best way to play the relative performance of an individual economy is through real estate. Indeed, European real estate offers compelling structural opportunities for investors who want to go long, and for investors who want to go short. By contrast, the opportunities to play intra-European economic divergences through other asset-classes have become limited. Nineteen European countries share one currency and one policy interest rate; and the mega-cap companies that drive the major equity indexes are multinationals exposed to the global economy. Meaning that a stock market's relative performance is no longer defined by its home economy; it is now defined instead by its dominant sectors and stocks.1 This leaves real estate as the purest play on the domestic economy. The evidence comes from the huge divergences in real estate market performances across Europe through the past two decades (Chart I-2-Chart I-4). While house prices in Sweden and Norway have more than trebled in real terms, house prices in Germany and Italy are at the same real level today as in 1995 (Chart of the Week). Chart I-2Winners And Losers In##br## European Real Estate Chart I-3Winners And Losers In##br## European Real Estate Chart I-4Winners And Losers In##br## European Real Estate How can German real estate be such a massive structural underperformer when the German economy has been one of Europe's star performers? The answer is that house prices take their cue from wages. German wages were suppressed for more than a decade, from which they are now playing a long catch up. A Tale Of Two Real Estate Markets: Germany And Sweden The two long-term drivers of house prices, assuming no supply bottlenecks, are: Real wages. The availability and price of bank credit. Real rents should trend higher to reflect the increasing quality of accommodation. For example, kitchens and bathrooms, heating and cooling systems and home security should all get better. In essence, the quality of accommodation benefits from productivity improvements. Of course, such improvements require investment expenditure. But a real estate investor requires a return on this investment. Therefore, rents - even after expenses - should increase in real terms. Given that house prices must maintain some long-term connection with rents, house prices should also trend higher in real terms, reflecting the improvements in home quality. But if real wages are not rising, it is impossible for tenants to absorb higher real rents, and so real rents and house prices stagnate. This describes the situation in Germany through 1995-2010 when labour market reforms resulted in real wages going nowhere, despite major gains in workers' real productivity (Chart I-5). Furthermore, as nominal adjustments to rents occur infrequently, German real rents and house prices actually fell through this extended period (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Through 1995-2010 German##br## Real Wages Stagnated... Chart I-6...So German Real Rents And ##br##House Prices Declined Since 2010, the dynamic has reversed. Needing to catch up with the economic fundamentals, German real wages, real rents and house prices have all rebounded very strongly. Nevertheless, based on the long-term connection with real productivity gains, German real rents and house prices have considerable further catch up potential. Just fifty miles across the Baltic Sea, the opposite is true. In Sweden - and Norway - house prices appear to have run well ahead of the economic fundamentals. For this, blame the central banks. In recent years, Sweden's Riksbank and the Norges Bank have had to shadow the ECB's ultra-loose policy to prevent a sharp appreciation of their currencies. The trouble is that the flood of bank credit has been absurdly inappropriate for the booming Scandinavian economies. So the ECB's policy may indeed have generated bank credit fuelled bubbles... albeit in Sweden and Norway. Real estate equities are just a leveraged play on rents - and thereby real estate capital values - because the companies take on debt to finance their property portfolios. This means that in the short term, they are (inversely) sensitive to bond yields, but in the long term the main driver is rental growth. Hence, in the German real estate market's post-2011 rebound, German real estate equities - now dominated by Vonovia, Deutsche Wohnen, LEG, and GSW - have trebled (Chart I-7), and the market relative trade is up a very pleasing 75 percent since we initiated it. Any rise in bond yields would be a short term drag, but given that real rents and house prices have further catch-up potential, the sector remains a worthwhile multi-year position, especially in relative terms. Chart I-7German Real Estate Equities ##br##Have Trebled Since 2012 Interestingly, Swedish real estate equities have also trebled in the post-2011 period (Chart I-8). But in Sweden's case, house prices are extended relative to the economic fundamentals. Swedish real estate equities - now dominated by Lundbergforetagen, Castellum, Fastighets, and Fabege - are likely to face harder times. Chart I-8Swedish Real Estate Equities ##br##Have Also Trebled Since 2012 Hence, the structural pair-trade is long German real estate equities, short Swedish real estate equities. Italian Real Estate Offers Distressed Opportunities Turning to Italian real estate, it has exhibited the mirror-image pattern of Germany. From the late nineties to 2008, Italian house prices almost doubled in real terms - only then to enter a ten year bear market. In recent years, Italian real wages have been growing again, raising the question: what is holding back Italian house prices? The answer is a banking system that will not lend, making it difficult for anybody to finance a house purchase (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italian Banks Haven't Been Lending... This lack of bank financing means that the natural flow of real estate that has to find a new owner is not receiving any bids. The upshot is that a long-term investor who can access financing can pick up property at highly distressed valuations, often at a fraction of the market price a few years ago. Some investors cannot remove a nagging fear about an 'Italexit' from the monetary union and the deep crisis that would follow. It is precisely because of the deep crisis that would ensue from a euro breakup that its likelihood remains low - though admittedly not zero. But even in that extreme eventuality, as long as Italy did not become an outlaw state in which property rights were dismantled, a long-term investor might still fare well. Because he would own a real asset bought at a very distressed price. Within the stock market, the real estate equity sector in Italy - just as in Germany and Sweden - has been a leveraged play on the house price cycle (Chart I-10). But there are two caveats: the sector is tiny with one dominant company, Beni Stabili; and Beni Stabili has just been taken over by the French property company Covivio. Still, now that Covivio owns a large portfolio of Italian real estate assets, it would be the appropriate equity to play this multi-year theme. And the bonus is that it offers a dividend yield of 5 percent. Chart I-10...Creating Distressed Opportunities In Italian Real Estate U.K. Real Estate Faces Headwinds Finally, the recent pressure on U.K. house prices is likely to persist (Chart I-11) - with the housing market facing at least one of three potential headwinds: Chart I-11U.K. Real Estate Faces Headwinds A disorderly Brexit, though not our central case, would pose a huge risk for the U.K. economy. On the other hand, an orderly and smooth transition to Brexit would liberate the Bank of England to hike interest rates further in 2019. Bear in mind that in the U.K., wage pressures and CPI inflation are not dissimilar to those in the U.S., where the Federal Reserve has already hiked the policy rate seven times. So it is largely the uncertainties surrounding Brexit that are staying the BoE's hands. The precarious path to leaving the EU on March 29 2019 is littered with landmines for Theresa May. Any of these landmines could trigger a snap General Election, a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour government, and the spectre of a high-end 'land value' tax. Hence, we remain reluctant to own U.K. residential real estate or real estate equities. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 For the compelling evidence, please see Charts 1-6 in the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Eight Components Of Equity Market Allocation' July 26 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* The 30% outperformance of India versus China during the recent EM shock is technically stretched, hitting a fractal dimension that signals a potential reversal, assuming no further deterioration in news flow. On this technical basis, the countertrend trade would be long China/short India with a profit target of 9% and symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long platinum/short nickel reached the end of its 65 day holding period very comfortably in profit. However, short consumer services versus consumer goods hit its stop-loss. This leaves five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations