by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] The president’s address: Last night, President Trump announced that he would expand the U.S. role in Afghanistan but did not give any specifics of the plan.  Additionally, the president stated that the U.S. will begin to pressure Pakistan to assist in the fight against terrorism as it is widely perceived that militant groups in Pakistan, most notably Haqqani, have been responsible for attacks in Afghanistan.  Trump’s apparent pivot in foreign policy allowed the GOP establishment to breathe a sigh of relief as he takes a more definitive leadership role abroad versus focusing on recent domestic issues.  News outlets have speculated for weeks that he would send 4,000 additional troops to the region, but the plan appeared to have stalled, most likely due to resistance from his former chief strategist, Steve Bannon.  Bannon’s exit from the cabinet seems to have paved the way for the decision as the military establishment faction of the president’s cabinet fills the ideological void that resulted from Bannon’s departure.  It is worth noting that Trump campaigned on a complete withdrawal from the war in Afghanistan; therefore, a reversal of this policy could lead to some backlash from his base.

Friend to foe: Breitbart News, an online publication headed by former chief strategist Steve Bannon, immediately condemned the president’s speech last night.  The news site labeled the president’s change in policy as a “flip-flop” and a “reversal of course.”  As noted in our previous report, we believe that Bannon was unable to disrupt the Washington establishment while working inside it and will now try to disrupt it from the outside.  A large faction of Trump supporters either read or are at least sympathetic to the views reported on Breitbart and, as a result, Bannon will likely use the publication to rally Trump supporters against the “globalist” factions within the president’s cabinet.  If the president continues to listen to the globalists in his cabinet, then we expect Breitbart to become increasingly more critical.

A parallel Italian currency?  Silvio Berlusconi, who is making something of a political comeback, raised the idea of creating a parallel currency in Italy.  The “new lire” could only be used within Italy (although, like bitcoin, if it became popular other nations could conceivably use it, too).  Clearly, euro-denominated bank debt would still need to be paid in euros but it might become popular if the Italian government is willing to accept the new lire for tax payments.  Of course, the other issue is in what currency would Italy denominate future government debt?  If it were denominated in the new lire, one would expect the yield to rise significantly.  Berlusconi has seen an improvement in his political standing and the euro is becoming less popular in Italy.  On the other hand, part of the reason nations in southern Europe adopted the euro was to enjoy the currency stability and low inflation that was common in northern Europe.  We suspect that the introduction of a parallel currency will end up with one of two outcomes: either it is successful and Italy leaves the Eurozone, or it fails and the Eurozone becomes even stronger.  If introduced, we suspect the odds favor the first outcome.

The election cycle: We have created an election cycle database for the S&P 500 beginning in 1928.  Taking the weekly data, we index the equity market to the first weekly close of the election year and show the behavior of the market over the subsequent four years.  This allows us to segregate the market by party in power, incumbent versus new party in power, etc.  The chart below shows how new GOP presidents fare.

Equity markets tend to like new GOP administrations; so far, the Trump administration is following the average pattern fairly well.  We are reaching the point in time where disappointment usually sets in; we suspect that by August investors’ hopes for policy changes are confronted with the difficult reality of passing legislation.  Do we expect the large drop projected by the average for a new GOP administration?  Not necessarily.  A drop of this magnitude would almost certainly require a catalyst, such as a recession (not likely), a war (improbable, but not zero probability) or a political event (a debt ceiling crisis might do the trick).  In the absence of a catalyst, the most likely outcome is a sideways to weaker market.  In general, studies like this should be used for general direction, not forecasting.  This study could mean that we may have seen the equity market high for the year.  At the same time, there is still ample liquidity available (retail MMK funds are near $970 bn, well above the $900 bn that signals a lack of buying power).  Thus, we wouldn’t be surprised if we have seen the high for this year, but the more likely outcome is a modest correction and churning for the rest of the year.

View the complete PDF

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Happy Eclipse Day!  Here are the news items we are following this morning:

Afghanistan policy: Tonight, President Trump will present his policy on Afghanistan.  Already we are seeing the impact of Chief of Staff (CoS) Kelly; so far, there have been no leaks of his plans.  We are expecting a modest increase in troop strength with a focus on planning.  There probably isn’t a workable solution to Afghanistan.  The NYT reported over the weekend that the country is again splitting up and being dominated by warlords.  There was never a unifying figure in Afghanistan and the naïve idea that merely holding elections will lead to democracy has been proven untrue.  American leadership is loath to walk away from a war and leave chaos but that is probably the more likely outcome here.  Still, we will watch tonight to see what the administration wants to do.

Post-Bannon: After rumors of his departure for the past month, Steve Bannon formally left the White House on Friday.  According to numerous reports, CoS Kelly told him he had to go shortly after Kelly took on his new role.  Bannon did accept and planned to leave in the middle of August; Kelly was prepared to grant him a graceful exit.  However, after his comments to the American Prospect last week, it appears he was pushed out.  There are several ramifications from his departure:

Bannon has the potential to be a major disruptive force to the president.  That isn’t his current plan but if the “globalists” in the White House control policy, we expect Bannon to become very critical of the administration.  Bannon has returned to Breitbart and there is talk of building a “right of Fox” media company complete with television, and there are rumors he may try to poach some of the more rightist personalities at Fox (FOX, 26.79) to build a new brand.  A famous line from The Godfather comes to mind here, “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.”

The globalists dominate the White House now.  Bannon had a nationalist agenda, which included a travel ban for Muslims, trade impediments and infrastructure.  Nothing really got accomplished.  Some of this wasn’t necessarily his fault.  The nationalists’ agenda is a major shift in policy.  The lessons of history suggest that major shifts do occur but they need specific conditions in order to work.  First, you need conditions so bad that the majority of people are behind the new leadership that wants to make the change.  The last two major shifts, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, took office when the consensus was that the current path was unstainable.  Roosevelt’s Democrat Party held over 70% of the House and 60% of the Senate; by the next term, party control increased to nearly 80%.  Thus, he was able to make major shifts in policy.  Reagan’s party only controlled the Senate and by a narrow majority.  He was able to make policy work by building bipartisan coalitions.  Trump’s position is closer to Reagan’s but, so far, he has been unable to build a bridge with the Democrat Party.  Some of this is due to the current level of hyper-partisanship.  Second, major changes require organization and unity.  Bannon’s expertise appears to be disruption, not creation.  We do expect the nationalist agenda to eventually win out, it just may not be from this president.  For now, the globalists have won the battle but the war rages on.

Cohn is likely our next Federal Reserve Chair.  By all accounts, Cohn was quite angry with the Tuesday press conference during which the president assigned blame to both the right and left in Charlottesville.  There were rumors he was about to walk.  We suspect he is making a trade—he will stay if he gets the FOMC Chair job.

War may be more likely.  Although we don’t ascribe to the idea that military leaders pine for war, there is evidence to suggest that NSC Chief McMasters is leaning toward “preventative war” in North Korea.[1]  Bannon’s comments to the American Prospect last week suggested that there was no chance of war on the peninsula and that Kim had outplayed Trump.  According to the NYT article in the footnote below, McMaster has concluded that the usual deterrent policies that have prevented nuclear war in the past won’t work with North Korea.  We are not convinced that’s true, but McMaster’s position on this matter is far more important than ours.

The debt ceiling: Although the administration wants a clean raising of the debt ceiling, the Freedom Caucus continues to make noise about getting some adjustment.  If spending isn’t cut, then they want some sort of automatic measures to curb the growth of the deficit in future years, something that might require a sequester-type agreement.  Meanwhile, Bannon is already indicating that the president should veto any debt ceiling increase that doesn’t include money for the Mexican border wall.  This issue has been a sleeper but will become a greater focus for investors after Labor Day.

Jackson Hole: The KC FRB begins its annual gathering on Thursday.  The most closely watched figure will be ECB President Mario Draghi.  We doubt he will signal anything concrete about tapering but all eyes will be watching.

View the complete PDF

---

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/world/asia/north-korea-war-trump.html?_r=0

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Yesterday saw a selloff in U.S. equities.  We are not seeing much of a recovery this morning.  Here is what we are watching today:

Barcelona: Using rented vans, a group of terrorists who claimed allegiance to ISIS tore through a tourist area of Barcelona, killing 14 (so far) and injuring over 100.  One of the disturbing parts of this event is how far the drivers of the vehicle moved before stopping.[1] There was a second attempted attack in Cambrils, a city about 70 miles south of Barcelona.  Police were able to thwart the second attack.  A number of people have been arrested.  Three vans were rented, so police are searching to find all the vehicles.  Although this attack was horrific, there are signs it could have been much worse.  The previous night, there was a gas explosion in Alcanar, a town south of Barcelona, that may have been a bomb-building facility for the terrorists.  We note that the terrorists in Cambrils were wearing fake suicide vests; it is possible the group intended to use explosives in their van attacks and were left with using the vehicles as weapons when the bomb-making apparatus failed.  Recent terrorist attacks in Europe are increasingly using vehicles as their weapon of choice.  Guns can be traced and explosives, though effective, require some degree of expertise to build.  But, most adults can drive cars.  Thus, one of the most ubiquitous elements of modern life has become a threat.  Market effects from terrorism tend to be short-lived; we are seeing some weakness in Eurozone equities but that is probably more due to yesterday’s U.S. selloff.

The “Cohn correction?”  We think this is the first time in our memory that financial markets are concerned about whether or not a presidential advisor is staying.  To a great extent, this is more about what Cohn represents.  As we noted yesterday, the Trump administration has included both economic nationalists, who want a populist agenda, and globalists, who represent the GOP establishment and favor globalization and deregulation.  The financial markets appear to have assumed that, in the end, the globalists would win out, bringing tax cuts, deregulation and continued open trade.  In reality, the evidence is mixed.  The president has made some steps toward impeding trade, although the moves have been more modest than the rhetoric.  At the same time, there has been lots of talk about tax cuts, although there is no detailed plan for legislation.  After the Monday press conference, speculation grew that Cohn might resign.  Recent reports suggest he intends to stay.  However, if he does leave, it might signal a broader exit of establishment figures in the administration and raise the odds that the nationalist agenda will dominate.  This outcome is clearly not well liked by the financial markets.  If the White House adopts a nationalist economic policy, it would create conditions of higher inflation.  Of course, the White House can only do so much; the president can clearly affect trade with significant independence from Congress.  On the other hand, tax policy and spending priorities need congressional approval.

Still, as we note below, there is no economic evidence of a recession which means that pullbacks will likely be short-lived.  In addition, as we noted in last week’s Asset Allocation Weekly, there is ample liquidity in the economy which should support the equity market.

View the complete PDF

---

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/17/world/europe/barcelona-terror-attack-path-of-the-van.html?emc=edit_mbe_20170818&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=5677267&te=1

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] There is something of a negative tone to risk assets this morning but nothing that, so far, appears significant.  Here is what we are watching today:

ECB minutes: The main takeaway from the ECB minutes is that the recent rise in the EUR has caught the attention of policymakers.  The EUR is just off a 30-month high in part due to expectations of a slow reversal of the ECB’s ultra-accommodative monetary policy.  Supporting EUR strength has been the realization that the FOMC (see next item) will be slow to raise rates.  And, on a purchasing power parity basis, the dollar remains overvalued (EUR fair value is around $1.30 based on these models)[1] and thus is vulnerable to weakness.  The ECB, unlike the Fed, has the exchange rate as part of its mandate and thus takes it into account when setting policy.  The EUR’s strength may slow the pace of stimulus withdrawal but we don’t expect it to stop it completely because Germany really wants to see tighter policy.  Eventually, the Merkel government will get its way.  The EUR is weaker this morning on the concerns expressed in the minutes.  However, we don’t expect that the ECB can engineer a reversal in recent currency trends, mostly because the European currency is still undervalued and U.S. monetary policy isn’t going to tighten all that much.

Fed minutes: Yesterday, the FOMC released the minutes of its July 25-26 meeting.  The minutes are heavily summarized (and sanitized); after five years, the Fed releases transcripts of these meetings which are quite enlightening, revealing disagreements and snarky comments.  In 2022, this meeting will probably have similar interesting commentary when the transcripts are released.  The committee is clearly divided; some members are worried that inflation could rise as capacity becomes constrained, and it appears that nearly an equal number worry that not only will inflation remain low but it might fall further.  Although the majority still adhere to the Phillips Curve framework, a significant minority are concluding that it is no longer useful in forecasting inflation.  The committee warned against deregulating too quickly or creating conditions that led to the Great Financial Crisis.  It does appear that the balance sheet reduction process could begin in September.  The markets took the minutes as dovish and we concur with that judgement.

Watching Washington: Early on, we argued that President Trump had to manage two constituencies, the establishment wing and the populist wing of the GOP.  The former want tax cuts, deregulation and continued globalization.  The latter want immigration restrictions, trade impediments, health care reform and infrastructure spending.  There are rather obvious policy conflicts between the two groups.  The establishment, heavily represented by business leaders, do not want trade restrictions and favor open immigration.  They are cool to infrastructure spending, although they are willing to bargain on that issue.  Regarding health care, big business has generally worked within the Obamacare framework and has learned to live with it; thus, repeal isn’t a high agenda item.  On the other hand, the populists, representing the working class and small business, are tired of globalization, have faced rising costs due to the Affordable Care Act and really don’t benefit directly from tax cuts.  Appeasing each group is difficult as there are few overlapping policies.  Managing this situation would be difficult for an accomplished political operator.  It is a really hard task for a neophyte.  Much of the president’s struggles are tied to managing this divide.

There are numerous cross-currents coming out of Washington over the past 48 hours.  Steve Bannon dropped a bombshell with his interview with Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect.[2]  Bannon indicated that there is no military solution to North Korea, essentially saying the president’s comments were bluster.  He showed his contempt for the establishment members of the administration (Cohn, Mnuchin) and also suggested the U.S. is at economic war with China.  Interestingly, he showed nothing but contempt for the white nationalists in Charlottesville.  To quote, “Ethno-nationalism—it’s losers. It’s a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.  These guys are a collection of clowns.”  Bannon is making an important distinction here between the working class and the white separatist, white power movement, suggesting that restricting trade and immigration (and probably reregulating the economy) are worthy causes.  Fighting over Civil War monuments isn’t a significant part of that policy goal; in fact, other than poking the mainstream media, this issue probably isn’t all that critical.  This may or may not be the president’s position on this issue.

Bannon has attempted to walk back these comments by saying he didn’t think it was an interview.  This is disingenuous.  Bannon ran Breitbart.  He should be acutely aware that unless clearly stated, journalists assume a discussion is on the record.  We do media interviews all the time; there have been occasions where, for a variety of reasons, all or part of an interview is “off the record.”  To signal this, we would tell the reporter up front that comments are not on the record and are only for background information.  We suspect Bannon knew what he was doing.

So, the exodus of CEOs from the various advisory boards appears to be a win for Bannon.  Attacking China on trade is a clear focus for him.  Here is what the markets should be watching.  If the establishment has failed to capture the president and he goes over to the populists, it probably won’t be good for financial markets.  Tax cuts and further deregulation may not occur.  Trade restrictions and immigration cuts are likely.  These actions will crimp margins.  The key to whether or not this trend develops rests on personnel; if establishment figures resign (Cohn, Mnuchin, et al.), the populists may gain access to the levels of power.

Energy Recap: U.S. crude oil inventories fell 8.9 mb compared to market expectations of a 2.5 mb draw.

This chart shows current crude oil inventories, both over the long term and the last decade.  We have added the estimated level of lease stocks to maintain the consistency of the data.  As the chart shows, inventories remain historically high but they are declining.  In fact, we have reached last year’s seasonal low, made in September; if seasonal patterns hold, we should see inventories fall to levels not seen since 2015.  Again, this week, there was no oil sold out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).  The authorized sale is nearly complete as 16.2 mb have been released out of an authorized 17.0 mb.

As the seasonal chart below shows, inventories are usually well into the seasonal withdrawal period.  Even with the SPR sales, we have already seen a larger than normal seasonal decline; in fact, the drop is rather remarkable.  It should be noted that the seasonal trough isn’t usually hit until mid-September.  Thus, we should see further stock withdrawals over the next four weeks.

Based on inventories alone, oil prices are overvalued with the fair value price of $52.22.  Meanwhile, the EUR/WTI model generates a fair value of $64.13.  Together (which is a more sound methodology), fair value is $60.26, meaning that current prices are well below fair value.  The most bullish factor for oil is currently dollar weakness, although the rapid decline in inventory levels is also supportive.  Prices are well above fair value.

So, why are oil prices struggling?  The mostly likely answer is that traders are focused on rising U.S. output.  The chart below shows weekly U.S. oil production.  It is near previous peaks.  When seasonal demand falls, which will begin over the next month, inventories could rise rapidly if production continues to increase.

However, one factor traders might be missing is that U.S. oil exports are rising as well.

There are reports that the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) is considering retrofitting its facility to also export oil.  Currently, it can only handle imports.  Rising exports can allow for rising production and falling U.S. crude stockpiles…but it is also bearish for global prices.

View the complete PDF

---

[1] https://www.confluenceinvestment.com/asset-allocation-weekly-july-21-2017/

[2] http://prospect.org/article/steve-bannon-unrepentant

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Financial markets are quiet this morning, consistent with the late summer lull.  However, there has been a lot of news flow.  Here’s what we are watching this morning:

Fallout from the president’s press conference: President Trump’s press conference yesterday was highly controversial and has given the media much to talk about.  However, what seems to have been lost in the comments is that he was expected to discuss infrastructure plans.  Infrastructure spending was one of the policies designed to boost the working class by creating construction jobs for projects around the country.  By shifting the focus to the events in Charlottesville, the president has muffled the infrastructure agenda and may have reduced any chances of getting a program through Congress.

GOP in disarray: The president’s comments have also put his party in a difficult position.  In an upcoming WGR, we will discuss the philosophical roots of fascism and populism.  Although often tied together, we will argue they come from different sources and ultimately have different agendas.  GOP members of Congress can certainly support populism but want to avoid any hint of association with fascism.  The president seems to be, perhaps inadvertently, equating the two movements and thus GOP members are being forced to either abandon the president or support a position that Americans fought against in WWII.  The bottom line is that it will be difficult to implement legislation, such as tax changes, infrastructure, a debt ceiling, etc., when the leadership is divided.[1]

An interesting trend in manufacturing jobs: We were examining the recently released JOLTS report that surveys the labor market for open positions, hiring and separations.  With the labor market tightening, we are seeing a rise in hiring.

That’s not a huge surprise.  What is a surprise is the jump in quit rates.

Usually, a rise in quit rates signals improving labor market confidence.  Workers who believe they can easily find another job are more inclined to quit.  Workers usually leave a job for one that has higher pay, so this is something we will be watching in the future.  We note an article in the Washington Post[2] offering anecdotal evidence that some of the quits are due to baby boomers reaching the point where the physical demands of the job are making separation packages look attractive.  Another factor mentioned is that the steady increase of automation has workers concluding that separation deals will become increasingly less attractive in the future and so taking one today is a better option.  The proof will be in the pay; we will be watching for signs of rising manufacturing wages but, so far, there isn’t any evidence of that.

Jackson Hole may just be a vacation: Every year, the KC FRB holds a meeting in Jackson Hole, WY.  If you haven’t ever visited the town, it is well worth it.  Near the Grand Tetons, it is simply beautiful.  The gathering, which will be held in late August this year, is often a forum for policymakers to unveil policy directions.[3]  Chair Bernanke signaled QE3 at this meeting in 2012; in 2014, Draghi laid out the bank’s current QE program.  There were expectations that ECB President Draghi would unveil his tapering program at Jackson Hole.  Sources indicate that will not occur, although he will give remarks.  No other policymakers are expected to signal anything significant.

North Korea: Although tensions have eased in the near term, there are a few developments worth mentioning.  First, the U.S. and South Korean militaries will conduct the annual Ulchi-Freedom Guardian military exercises, a 10-day event that will begin on Aug. 21.  These war games infuriate the Kim regime and China has tried to set up a “freeze for freeze” scenario, in which the U.S. would suspend these games and North Korea would suspend its nuclear and missile program.  So far, neither side has agreed.  In what is a rare event, Gen. Joseph Dunford, Joint Chief of Staff, is visiting Chinese military facilities on the North Korean/Chinese frontier.[4]  This visit is thought to be a signal to the “Young Marshal” that China is displeased with North Korea’s behavior.

View the complete PDF

---

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-charlottesville-ryan-republicans-241668?lo=ap_b1

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-tried-to-save-their-jobs-these-workers-are-quitting-anyway/2017/08/15/6a555f2a-7d50-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html?stream=top-stories&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=.1290df930298

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/a-look-back-at-jackson-hole

[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-chinese-militaries-take-steps-to-coordinate-more-closely-1502812501?mg=prod/accounts-wsj&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Markets are calming down.  Here’s what we are tracking this morning:

North Korea blinks: According to numerous reports, the military leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) offered plans to Kim Jong-un for a missile test around the U.S. territory of Guam.  After reviewing the plans, the “young marshal” decided to postpone any attacks.  There has been a definite cooling of tensions since rhetoric intensified last week.  As noted before, the U.S. military has not mobilized for an extended attack.  U.S. military leaders have been stressing the need for diplomacy.  South Korea’s president indicated that “only the Republic of Korea (South Korea) can make the decision for military action on the Korean Peninsula.”[1]  Although President Moon is partially correct in his assessment, in that the U.S. can’t dictate a ground war on the peninsula, an attack on Guam would lead to a U.S. response regardless of South Korea’s position.  Still, as tensions ease, we are seeing a reversal of risk trades—the dollar is higher, gold and Treasury prices are falling and equities are improving (today’s retail sales data, shown below, have accelerated these trends).

The next North Korea?  Iranian President Rouhani indicated today that his country could quit the nuclear deal “within hours” if new U.S. sanctions are imposed.  Recently, the U.S. has applied unilateral sanctions on six Iranian companies for their work on Iran’s ballistic missile program.  The Trump administration argues that Iran’s missile tests and development violate the 2015 nuclear deal; Iran denies that their conduct bars such activity.  If relations between the U.S. and Iran continue to deteriorate and the nuclear deal ends, we expect Iran to rapidly move to build a deliverable weapon.  This outcome would be quite negative.  First, Israel will likely view this as an existential threat and could strike Iran with its own (so far undeclared) nuclear weapons.  Second, even if military action doesn’t occur, a nuclear Iran will very likely create a nuclear arms race in the region and, given the instability of these regimes, the chances increase for either a nuclear accident or a rogue government with a nuke.  The Iran nuclear deal probably was nothing more than “kicking the can down the road.”  However, the end of “can kicking” has its own problems and it isn’t clear that the U.S. has the bandwidth to handle increasing problems in the Far East and the Middle East simultaneously.  Additionally, we would fully expect the Putin regime to take advantage of American distraction if conditions in the Middle East deteriorate.

Germany signals to the ECB: German Finance Minister Schäuble indicated today that the European Central Bank’s ultra-loose monetary policy would come to an end in the “foreseeable future.”  However, he also indicated that rates would remain low.  Germany has not been comfortable with ECB monetary policy for some time and monetary policy is probably too loose given the strength of the economy.  The EUR has been appreciating this year due to a combination of tighter ECB policy expectations, an overvalued dollar and disappointment that dollar bullish policies (e.g., border adjustment tax, infrastructure spending, etc.) expected when Trump was elected have failed to materialize.  It should be noted that Schäuble’s comments were made at a campaign rally; Germany, a net saving nation, feels it is being unfairly penalized with low interest rates.  So, his comments were well received.

View the complete PDF

---

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/2de5c7ce-815f-11e7-a4ce-15b2513cb3ff?emailId=599271a28146910004bcb96f&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22 (paywall)