Asset Allocation Quarterly (First Quarter 2017)

  • The November elections have had a significant impact on the financial markets. It is important to watch how policies from the new administration unfold.
  • We don’t expect new policies to rapidly accelerate economic growth. However, we do expect growth to improve modestly in 2017.
  • Our equity allocations are entirely domestic. We shift allocations toward large caps for conservative investors, while focusing more on small and mid-caps for aggressive investors.
  • We shorten the average maturity of bond allocations, recognizing tighter Fed policy and the potential for higher inflation.
  • Our growth/value style bias shifts in favor of value at 30/70.

ECONOMIC VIEWPOINTS

Since November, the outcome of the elections has dominated the market narrative. Equity markets rallied sharply, while bonds declined, reflecting a shift in expectations for higher economic and earnings growth, along with rising inflation and tighter Fed policy. Seemingly, the new expectations reflect a lot of optimism for the new president. The thing is, the elephant in the room isn’t really an elephant…at least not a traditional one. Trump made his way into the White House campaigning on positions contrary to several long-standing Republican policies. So, as we begin life under this new administration, we’ll be keeping a close eye on its policies. We’ll be watching to see if Trump tacks toward Republican supply-side views, or if he instead hews to populist priorities.

A supply-side approach would focus on making capital more available and more easily invested. Policies would include lower taxes and less regulation, with the belief that rising capital efficiency would stimulate the economy. Theoretically, companies would hire more workers and increase long-term investments. Some of Trump’s cabinet selections indicate this may be the direction he is headed toward.

On the other hand, Trump’s vocal opposition to the current state of global trade hearkens to a populist view, one contrary to decades of establishment policy. Here the expectation is for “level” global trade agreements to bring jobs back to the United States and increase wages, which would stimulate economic growth. Early jawboning indicates this may be the new policy direction.

Of course, it’s possible we see a combination of supply-side and populist policies. Unfortunately, we don’t expect either strategy to create significant job or wage growth. Technology and innovation appear to be at the root of limited labor opportunities, and both will probably play a role in disappointing some optimists. But even as we don’t expect a big uplift in growth, we do believe there’s room for some improvement in 2017. The economy has maintained a fairly steady, albeit below-average, growth rate, even as the Fed has moved through two rate increases. We believe this trend should continue with modest acceleration, unless the Fed becomes too aggressive.

What do we expect from the Fed? Right now, Fed guidance indicates three rate hikes in 2017. Up until recently, the financial markets have been at odds with the Fed’s guidance, having expected a more moderate pace of tightening. For the most part, markets have been correct. But as we look forward, market expectations are now quite closely aligned with the Fed’s guidance. In this chart, the green line represents the median forecast for short-term rates by the Fed’s voting policy members for the next few years, while the blue line illustrates the market’s expectations. We can see the market has generally accepted the Fed’s guidance.

(Source: Bloomberg, CIM)

Will three rate hikes be too much for the economy in 2017? At this point, we don’t think so. However, even the Fed has communicated the importance of evaluating developing economic conditions as it directs monetary policy. We are optimistic the Fed can make the appropriate adjustments, even as we’re aware of the Fed’s proclivity to overtighten. Given the importance of the Fed’s policy decisions, the real elephant in the room may actually turn out to be the Fed.

STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK

Equities performed well in 2016, although most of the returns were earned after the November elections. The surge reflects widespread optimism for higher economic growth and rising corporate earnings. Although we see a pathway for both, we expect equity investors are likely to encounter periods of disappointment along the way. Valuations have risen ahead of actual results, meaning delays and shortfalls could increase downside risk.

Still, we expect a generally good environment for stocks. Small and mid-cap stocks performed particularly well in 2016, and all of the portfolios benefited from their inclusion. We continue to hold a favorable view toward small and mid-sized companies, which may benefit as Washington policies become more inwardly focused on the U.S. economy. However, with the recent strong performance of small and mid-caps, we are shifting some equity allocations toward large caps for conservative and income-oriented investors, and toward mid-caps in our more aggressive portfolios. Large caps tend to have lower relative volatility and we expect this asset class to also perform reasonably well.

Within large caps we favor the energy, financial, industrial and utility sectors, while we are underweight technology and telecom. Sector preferences incorporate our views toward valuations, industry fundamentals and potential changes in regulations. Our growth/value style bias shifts in favor of value at 30/70.

We continue to avoid foreign developed equities. Their valuations may be attractive, and many foreign economies should benefit from a stronger U.S. dollar; however, the strong dollar may also diminish returns on foreign investments for U.S. investors. Risk in emerging markets could also increase. For these reasons, we eliminate our emerging allocations this quarter and have no foreign equity allocations in the portfolios.

BOND MARKET OUTLOOK

Optimism in the equity markets following the elections was mirrored with pessimism in the debt markets. Expectations for higher economic growth benefited equities but also created expectations for tighter monetary policy, which helped move bonds lower. Adding to negative sentiment has been the prospect for rising longer term inflation, which could emerge if global trade declines.

For quite some time, we have included long maturity bonds in portfolios. This allocation not only contributed to income and returns, but it also provided significant diversification benefits. But as we look forward, we may be at the point where a multi-decade decline in rates may be turning around. If we are in a reversal, we don’t expect a rapid increase. Still, we believe it’s prudent to pare back some of the long-term bond allocation this quarter. We continue to favor corporate bonds, including both investment and speculative grades, as we expect relatively low default rates.

OTHER MARKETS

Even with an increase in longer term rates, we believe real estate can continue to perform well. Financing costs remain relatively low, while occupancy and rental rates are constructive. In addition, real estate rental rates often scale with inflation, providing a mechanism to help maintain income should inflation arise. With the modest pullback in the second half of 2016, we believe real estate is attractive, particularly where income is an objective.

Commodity prices could rise with faster U.S. growth, and this asset class may be helpful if we experience rising inflation. However at this point in the cycle, we believe other asset classes offer a more attractive return/risk profile. This quarter we exit the gold allocation, which was useful in addressing global central bank policies; however, our expectation for a strengthening U.S. dollar now makes gold relatively less attractive.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (January 5, 2017)

by Bill O’Grady, Kaisa Stucke, and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EST] Initial comments from the Fed minutes yesterday suggested they were somewhat hawkish.  Market action this morning, especially the dollar’s retreat, has led commentators to suggest that the minutes were, in fact, dovish.  We suspect they were neither.  The FOMC is in the same situation as all of us—there is a good bit of uncertainty surrounding future fiscal and regulatory policy and until legislation emerges, there is little point in doing too much.  We did note that Chair Yellen’s recent trial balloon of allowing the economy to “run hot” by allowing the unemployment rate to fall below what is considered the “natural rate” was mostly downplayed.  Simply put, the FOMC won’t let the unemployment rate approach 4% without considering rate hikes.  The minutes also suggested that the FOMC may raise rates at a quicker pace if fiscal stimulus does ramp up the economy.  It is worth remembering that Chair Yellen downplayed the need for fiscal stimulus in her last press conference, and so increased government spending will likely be taken as a call for tighter monetary policy.

The big news overnight came from China as the CNY staged a strong rally.  It has all the elements of a short squeeze as the PBOC and Chinese officials use various methods to cut off avenues of capital flight.  In addition, the Xi regime has been instructing companies to repatriate funds from overseas to slow the loss of foreign reserves.  These measures apparently caught traders short, leading to what appears to be an aggressive short covering rally.

(Source: Bloomberg)

 

This chart shows the CNY/USD rate on an inverted scale.  Note the strong recovery.

In fact, the recovery has outpaced the offshore yuan.

(Source: Bloomberg)

The offshore rate is shown in yellow and is usually considered the market rate for the currency.  The fact that the official rate is strengthening faster than the offshore rate hints at official intervention.

What is China trying to do here?  We view this as a successful official intervention.  The government wants to undermine the notion that the CNY is a one-way bet and is using means to punish speculators.  However, this action does carry a cost in that the PBOC has been forced to steadily raise interest rates.

(Source: Bloomberg)

This chart shows the one-month Chinese LIBOR rate. Since mid-November (about the time of the Trump victory), the PBOC has been guiding rates higher, most likely in a bid to make shorting the CNY more expensive.  We doubt China will want to take rates much higher and so we view the strength in the CNY as temporary; we view dollar weakness today in the same light.

Finally, as a side note, bitcoin is down almost 17% today, reflecting the rally in the CNY.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (January 4, 2017)

by Bill O’Grady, Kaisa Stucke, and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EST] It was mostly quiet overnight.  Perhaps the most interesting news came from National Front Leader Marine Le Pen, who indicated that she would want a single currency in Europe to continue even if France leaves the Eurozone.  Le Pen has said before that if she wins the presidency she will hold a referendum on exiting the Eurozone and returning to the franc.  However, today she seemed to indicate that she really wants a return to the old European Monetary System (EMS), which was a series of exchange rate pegs with some degree of flexibility.  We suspect she is trying to soften her currency position in front of the spring elections.  Polls suggest most voters in France would prefer to stay in the Eurozone and our research suggests that there is little need for France to leave the single currency.  Simply put, in terms of relative inflation, there are no serious valuation problems in France.  By harkening back to the pre-Eurozone era, Le Pen is, it seems, looking to “make France great again.”  Of course, the EMS also existed when there were two Germanys.

Britain’s ambassador to the EU resigned in frustration with the May government.  Sir Ivan Rogers was one of the country’s most experienced diplomats.  He has consistently indicated that Brexit would be messy and difficult and that the EU is likely to make the process onerous, simply as a warning to other members that leaving is costly.  According to the FT, members of the May administration were tired of Roger’s pessimism; sadly, he is probably giving the prime minister an accurate picture of Britain’s future outside the EU.

According to Bloomberg, Chinese officials are looking at a number of measures to curb capital flight.  China allows households to move $50k each year offshore; this year, reports suggest the paperwork has expanded to discourage such actions.  As we have documented over the past year, China has been spending part of its foreign exchange reserves to slow the CNY’s weakness.  According to reports, China is “encouraging” state owned firms to bring offshore funds back to China and may require them to convert these offshore holds to CNY.

One of the indicators we monitor is bitcoin.

(Source: Bloomberg)

This chart shows the CNY against the XBT/USD relationship over the past two years; we have seen the two exchange rates steadily diverge.  This may be due to Chinese investors using the anonymous bitcoin architecture as a conduit to push money out of China.  If this is the case, and Chinese authorities can’t find a way to close this portal, bitcoin could continue to rise and China will be forced to use more of its reserves to prevent the CNY from weakening further and faster.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (January 3, 2017)

by Bill O’Grady, Kaisa Stucke, and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EST] Happy New Year!  We’re back…

After some profit-taking into year’s end, the first trading day of the year is starting off with a return to mid-December trends—long-term interest rates are rising, the dollar is up and U.S. equities are up as well.  The dollar’s strength is pushing gold prices lower but oil continues to trade stronger despite the rising greenback.  News that Kuwait and Oman have made production cuts in line with the OPEC agreement is supporting higher oil prices.

President-elect Trump has appointed Robert Lighthizer to the post of U.S. Trade Representative.   Like Trump’s pick of Peter Navarro, Lighthizer leans toward trade restrictions, especially against China, and is friendly toward tariffs and quotas.

One of the aspects of Trump’s trade policy that has, in our opinion, been underestimated by financial markets is the lack of understanding of the reserve currency role.  The dollar, as the global reserve currency, is used for trade transactions that do not involve the U.S.  The BIS estimates that about 80% of trade-related letters of credit are denominated in U.S. dollars.[1]  The most effective way for foreign nations to acquire dollars is by trading with the U.S.  In fact, the world needs to run trade surpluses with the U.S. so that there are ample dollars available for global trade.  This situation creates a problem; eventually, either domestic support for trade falters in the reserve currency nation due to job losses or foreigners lose faith that the reserve currency nation will maintain the value of the currency.  This problem was first identified by an economist named Robert Triffin (thus it has been described as the “Triffin dilemma”).

What the incoming administration doesn’t seem to recognize is that if the U.S. takes steps to restrict trade it will reduce the supply of dollars on global markets.  Falling supply without a commensurate reduction in demand will lead to a stronger dollar.  And, fears among foreign nations that the U.S. is going to restrict trade will actually boost demand, enhancing the effect.  Couple this policy with proposed changes in corporate tax law that would create border adjustments to tax imports and not exports and the dollar will rise further (not to mention the potential impact of a repatriation holiday).  In the face of tighter imports, the FOMC may be inclined to lift rates sooner and by more than the markets expect.  Although we always have concerns about “one-way trades,” a stronger dollar looks inevitable.

Overall, then, what does a stronger dollar bring?  It’s bearish for commodities; gold is especially vulnerable.  As noted above, oil is trading counter to the stronger dollar on expectations of OPEC supply cuts but, in general, dollar strength is negative for commodities.  Dollar strength is a profoundly bearish factor for emerging market equity and debt; dollar strength has been behind emerging market economic problems since currency floating began.  For developed markets, it’s something of a wash.  The weaker foreign currencies act as a form of policy stimulus, which is bullish for equities in local terms, but the unknown for a U.S.-based investor is whether the dollar strength will offset the equity market rally.  In the U.S., small and mid-caps tend to benefit on a relative basis to large caps because the latter have more foreign exposure and thus earnings for large caps are at greater risk.

View the complete PDF

__________________________________

[1] http://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs50.pdf, especially page 13.

Quarterly Energy Comment (December 30, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady

The Market
Oil prices have broken above their $44 to $52 per barrel trading range in the wake of the recent OPEC output agreement.

(Source: Barchart.com)

OPEC
In a reversal of recent policy, Saudi Arabia spearheaded an agreement to cut oil production.  OPEC has agreed to cut production by about 1.3 mbpd and select non-OPEC producers have chipped in additional reductions of 0.53 mbpd as well.  The total OPEC output quota is 32.7 mbpd.

The table below shows the projected cuts relative to what OPEC said it was producing (the reference column) and what Bloomberg estimated for October’s actual production.  We have calculated the differences relative to quota from the two production estimates.  The areas in yellow represent nations that were not awarded a quota.  Indonesia is no longer an oil exporter, while Nigeria and Libya were not given a quota due to persistent production interruptions.

View the complete PDF

Asset Allocation Weekly (December 23, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Due to the upcoming holidays, the next edition of this report will be published on January 6, 2017.

The Fed gave us a modest hawkish surprise last week, calling for three rate hikes in 2017 rather than two.  The news has boosted Treasury yields and lifted the dollar.  Equities mostly absorbed the news without incident.

Here is a chart of the FOMC’s average dots over the past two years.

The fuchsia dots represent the most recent meeting.  The dots have stopped their steady progression toward lower levels.  For better or worse, the path of policy expectations from the dots suggests that the FOMC is becoming comfortable with this path of hikes.

Here is the dots plot from September.

(Source: Bloomberg)

Note the purple line, which is the LIBOR-OIS curve from the meeting day.  It has jumped from where it was on the meeting date in September, shown by the red line.  For the past few years, the FOMC dots have tended to decline toward the market.  The rise in the LIBOR-OIS curve suggests that process is reversing.

This is the new dots plot, released at the December meeting.

(Source: Bloomberg)

For 2017, the median forecast is currently 1.375%, up from 1.125% in September.  For 2018, the median is up to 2.125% from 1.875%.  Two participants see no change next year but one of those is probably St. Louis FRB President Bullard, who has decided not to participate in the dots procedure.  Although market expectations continue to lag, we did see the LIBOR-OIS rate rise to 1.25% from 0.875% in September.

This can be seen in the deferred Eurodollar futures.

The jump in yields since Trump’s election has been striking.  We are approaching the highest level of implied rates since the “taper tantrum.”  This rise triggered the onset of the dollar rally in mid-2014 and we note that the dollar has been rising since the election.

To get some sense of where policy is in relation to the neutral rate, we use the Mankiw rule model, incorporating the recent rate changes by the FOMC.  This model attempts to determine the neutral rate for fed funds, which is a rate that is neither accommodative nor stimulative.  Mankiw’s model is a variation of the Taylor Rule.  The latter measures the neutral rate using core CPI and the difference between GDP and potential GDP, which is an estimate of slack in the economy.  Potential GDP cannot be directly observed, only estimated.  To overcome this problem, Mankiw used the unemployment rate as a proxy for economic slack.  We have created four versions of the rule, one that follows the original construction by using the unemployment rate as a measure of slack, a second that uses the employment/population ratio, a third using involuntary part-time workers as a percentage of the total labor force and a fourth using yearly wage growth for non-supervisory workers.

Using the unemployment rate, the neutral rate is now 3.63%.  Using the employment/population ratio, the neutral rate is 1.08%.  Using involuntary part-time employment, the neutral rate is 2.79%.  And finally, the wage growth model puts the neutral rate at 1.56%.

It is still uncertain which of these variants best reflects slack (or lack thereof) in the economy.  Although we tend to think that wage growth or the employment/population ratio is the best measure of slack, the key is which one policymakers view as the most consistent with measuring slack.  At this point, we don’t know, although we think the hawks are probably relying on the unemployment rate variant while the chair and most of the doves probably believe the involuntary part-time employment variant is the best measure.  The involuntary part-time employment variant is most consistent with six rate hikes over the next 24 months.  That path would bring the policy rate near neutral; however, if they are wrong and, for example, the employment/population ratio is actually correct, then policy will be overly restrictive (assuming that ratio doesn’t improve dramatically).  Thus, the FOMC is moving rates higher in a slow fashion to allow them time to adjust if it turns out there is more slack (reflected by the lower neutral rate variants) than some data would suggest.  Of course, by going slow, assuming the higher neutral rate variants are correct, the Fed could keep policy overly accommodative longer than it should.  However, as long as the economy remains globalized and deregulated enough to allow for the nearly unfettered introduction of new technology, being late isn’t all that risky.  That assumption would change if the incoming President Trump puts up trade barriers.  Thus, the path of monetary policy could be a risk factor in the upcoming year.

View the PDF

Daily Comment (December 23, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady, Kaisa Stucke, and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EST]

(Note to readers: We are suspending the Daily Comment next week, starting on Tuesday, December 27.  We will restart the report on Tuesday, January 3.  From all of us at Confluence Investment Management, we wish you a warm and blessed holiday season!)

Happy Festivus!

 Although market activity is quiet, there were a number of new items of note.  First, the lead suspect in the Berlin Christmas terrorist event was shot and killed in Milan this morning.  Anis Amri, a Tunisian national that was slated for deportation, is thought to have driven the truck used in the attack.  According to reports, Amri was traveling by train from France to Italy when he was approached during an ID check.  Amri apparently pulled a gun from his backpack and opened fire on security officers who returned fire and killed him.  On the one hand, the fact he was tracked down in less than a week suggests security forces were generally on top of the situation.  On the other hand, the fact Amri passed through at least three borders since the attack (Germany, France and Italy) will raise calls for better frontier security.  Of course, this would undermine Schengen Area policy which allows for free movement within the EU.

It appears that two hijackers have taken control of a Libyan airliner that was forced to land in Malta this morning.  The Afriqiyah Airways plane with 111 passengers (and seven crew members) is on the ground in Malta.  The two hijackers have threatened to blow up the aircraft.  Latest reports suggest the hijackers have released at least 65 passengers with unconfirmed reports that all 111 are now off the plane.  It is unclear what the hijackers want.

Two notable news items emerged from China.  First, the lead story in today’s FT reports that Chinese officials are not happy with the appointment of Peter Navarro to a newly created trade policy office.  Navarro, a Harvard economist and professor at UC-Irvine, holds positions that are strongly anti-Chinese.  One pattern we are seeing from China is that they are reacting quickly to any actions by the president-elect they view as unfriendly.  Navarro’s appointment is a win for the populists in the Trump government.  Second, General-Secretary Xi hinted today that he is open to growth falling below 6.5%; Xi suggested that slower growth is acceptable as long as employment stays firm (which is, of course, the rub).   In general, China can engineer any level of growth it wants as long as it has the capacity to expand its debt.  However, with its total debt at 250% of GDP and rising rapidly, Xi may be simply acknowledging that the only way to slow the growth of debt is by reducing GDP growth.  If China takes these steps, it will reduce global growth.  On the other hand, it will reduce the likelihood of a debt crisis.

 

View the complete PDF

 

Daily Comment (December 22, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady, Kaisa Stucke, and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EST]

(Note to readers: We are suspending the Daily Comment next week, starting on Tuesday, December 27.  We will restart the report on Tuesday, January 3.  From all of us at Confluence Investment Management, we wish you a warm and blessed holiday season!)

There are reports out of Italy that the government will protect bondholders of the failing bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMDPD, $8.70) after an attempt to raise capital failed.  The Italian government has created a €20 bn fund to support the banking system.  However, it is unclear how the Italian government can use this money to bail out bondholders and not violate EU banking regulations, which require shareholders and bondholders to be “bailed in” to any bank rescue before public money is deployed.  In Italy, bank bonds were often sold to households and marketed as forms of deposit.  If these bondholders are bailed in, they will take losses on their bonds; this creates a political crisis, at best, and a bank run, at worst.  Given the size of Italy’s economy and its political importance to the Eurozone, we would normally expect the rules to be bent to prevent a political crisis in the EU.  However, the Germans will be upset if the rules are ignored and with Merkel facing elections in the autumn of 2017 they may take a hard line on this bailout.  Thus, the potential for a political or financial crisis is rising due to this bailout.

U.S. crude oil inventories rose 2.2 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 below shows, inventories remain elevated.

The annual seasonal pattern suggests inventories should decline into year’s end.  This week’s data is inconsistent with that relationship.  Still, on a seasonal basis, inventories have declined more than usual.

Based on inventories alone, oil prices are overvalued with the fair value price of $40.47.  Meanwhile, the EUR/WTI model generates a fair value of $35.82.  Together (which is a more sound methodology), fair value is $35.39, meaning that current prices are well above fair value.[1]  OPEC has managed to lift prices but maintaining these levels will be a challenge given the dollar’s strength and the continued elevated levels of inventory.

View the complete PDF

________________________________

[1] The reason the combined model is calculating a fair value price below the individual models for the euro and oil stocks is due to the fact that the euro and oil stocks are collinear.  In other words, the euro and oil stocks are correlated at -88.8%, meaning a weaker euro usually means higher oil stocks.  The fact that oil inventories are falling into a weakening euro is unusual.

2017 Outlook (December 21, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady & Mark Keller | PDF

Key Points:

  1. The economy will avoid a recession in 2017. GDP growth is expected to average 2.8% with core PCE inflation approaching the Federal Reserve’s target of 2.0%.
  2. Fixed income markets will be challenging:
    1. We expect three rate hikes of 25 bps each by the FOMC;
    2. Due to rising inflation expectations, 10-year yields will reach 3%;
    3. A swing toward equality and higher inflation would be expected to narrow credit spreads.
  3. Equity markets should be strong until Q4:
    1. Basis the S&P 500, our base case is for a 9.2% rise in earnings to $119.45;
    2. Our base P/E model is projecting a fair value of 18.4x;
    3. Our forecast for the S&P 500 is 2400 to be achieved sometime in 2017, most likely by Q3;
      1. Earnings should exceed our base forecast because:
        1. We will see a narrowing of the S&P/Thomson Reuters operating earnings spread;
        2. Corporate tax reform should increase earnings.
      2. Multiples should also expand due to:
        1. Improved investor sentiment over Trump’s victory, although this could wane by Q4;
        2. High levels of “sideline” cash.
    4. We continue to favor domestic over foreign stocks;
    5. We have a bias toward value;
    6. We are neutral on capitalization.
  4. Commodity prices will tend to struggle due to dollar strength. Oil prices will average around $55 per barrel due to OPEC’s actions to reduce supply.
  5. The dollar will remain strong. We would expect the EUR/USD rate to approach $1.00.

Note:  The structure of this report will be somewhat different from our previous forecasts in that we will present a framework for the economy and markets signaled by the election of Donald Trump. We will first offer a basic outline of what Trump represents and use this framework in our forecasts for next year. There are always risks and unknowns about any new president, but the potential for error is elevated as we believe this election clearly signals a change in direction for the economy and the country. Our 2017 Outlook will be affected by these changes, requiring us to discuss at least our initial estimates of the impact of President-elect Trump.

Read the full report