Developed Countries

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

In early October, we initiated a pair trade long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary, underpinned by four key drivers: interest rates, relative demand, relative export backdrop and relative sentiment. Importantly, recent consumer credit data reinforces our expectation that, despite a solid showing out of the gate, this late-cycle trade should deliver outsized returns. In the most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey, consumer lenders are firmly in tightening mode, a trend that has been ongoing since the middle of last year (second panel). Insipid personal consumption expenditure (PCE), which has trailed surging capital expenditures by a wide margin, corroborates this trend. The consequence of a shift from PCE to capex should be a swing in earnings growth in favor of S&P industrials (bottom panel); maintain a long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade and see our Weekly Report from October 9 for more details.

Highlights The so-called 'Silver Tsunami' of retiring baby boomers will continue to be a drag on aggregate wage growth for some time. We would strongly bet against the two further rate hikes that the Bank of England has flagged for this tightening cycle. Overweight U.K. 10-year gilts versus German 10-year bunds; and underweight GBP/EUR. The global inflation mini-cycle will turn down in early 2018. Approaching the year end, use technical opportunities to trim exposure to commodities, commodity equities and commodity currencies. Feature Last week, the Bank of England pointed out that "some of the softness in recent pay outturns had related to the composition of employment, with the number of low-paid jobs growing disproportionately."1 Separately, a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco described the exact same phenomenon in the United States. "The drag on wage growth reflects changes in workforce composition."2 The San Francisco Fed study highlighted two paradoxes. The first paradox is that for continuously full-time employed workers, wages are actually rising quite strongly. For the continuously employed, pay is growing close to the rate seen at the previous economic peak in 2007 (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekThe Inflation Mini-Cycle Will Turn Down In Early 2018 Chart I-2Will The Real Wage Inflation Please Stand Up However, the entry of new and returning workers to full-time employment continues to depress aggregate wage growth - because new entrants generally earn less than workers who are leaving full-time employment. This creates the second paradox. Strong job growth can actually pull down average wages in the economy and slow the pace of aggregate wage growth. Solving The Wage Puzzle According to the San Francisco Fed, this 'composition effect' is exceptionally pronounced right now because of the large-scale exit of higher-paid baby boomers from the labour force. This has depressed aggregate wage growth by 2 percentage points, a sizeable effect relative to the normal expected wage gains. Furthermore, with so many of the baby boomer generation still approaching retirement, "the so-called Silver Tsunami will continue to be a drag on aggregate wage growth for some time." A second very important factor is at play. The current wave of technological progress is having its most disruptive impact on middle-income jobs. As we explained in Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes,3 "high-level reasoning - such as logic and algebra - requires very little computation, but supposedly low-level sensorimotor skills - such as mobility and perception - require vast computational resources." The upshot is that when baby boomers retire, automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are replacing many of the jobs that the boomers occupied in high-income and middle-income sectors such as Finance and Manufacturing, rather than opening up these formerly lucrative career paths to new entrants. Therefore, new entrants are flooding into industry sectors which AI cannot yet disrupt but which are traditionally much lower paid with limited prospects for advancement - sectors like Food Services and Drinking Places and Administrative and Support Services (Table I-1). Table I-1Which Sectors Are Creating The Most Jobs? In summary, for the continuously employed, wages are rising healthily. But for aggregate wage growth, the composition effect from retirements and new entrants is an exceptionally strong headwind. What does this mean for overall inflation? The study concludes that as long as the economy can keep its wage bill low by replacing retiring staff with AI and with lower-paid workers, "labour cost pressures for higher price inflation could remain muted for some time." Given that the next wave of AI is just about to hit us, we expect these conditions to hold true in all developed economies for at least the next five years. Solving The U.K. Productivity Puzzle Chart I-3Since The Global Financial Crisis U.K. ##br##Productivity Has Stagnated But the San Francisco Fed study does also carry a warning about a latent inflationary threat. If productivity growth is slowing, "continued increases in unit labour costs could be hiding behind low readings on measures of aggregate wage growth." This seems to be a particular worry in the U.K. Since the global financial crisis, serial disappointments in productivity growth have concerned the Bank of England (Chart I-3). However, the Bank need not worry. We would like to present a very simple explanation for the U.K.'s so-called 'productivity puzzle'. Big clues come from comparing and contrasting the economic recoveries of 1993-2000 with 2009-17. At the very beginning of the two recoveries, productivity growth evolved in the same way. But then it took drastically different paths. Through the late 1990s, productivity growth accelerated, whereas through the 2010s productivity has stagnated. Why? A plausible explanation comes from the mirror-image patterns in self-employment. At the very beginning of the two recoveries, self-employment evolved in the same way. But through the late 1990s self-employment fell by 300,000, whereas through the 2010s self-employment has increased by a million, accounting for 30% of all jobs created (Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7). Furthermore, there is a tell-tale pattern. Whenever self-employment has picked up most sharply - for example, 2011-13 and 2015 - productivity growth has taken a big hit. Chart I-41990s Recovery: ##br##Self-Employment Fell Chart I-52010s Recovery: Self-Employment ##br##Has Risen Sharply Chart I-6Compare And Contrast: ##br##The Pattern of Self-Employment... Chart I-7...And Productivity...##br##Are Mirror-Images What's going on? Contrary to popular belief, the self-employed are not innovative entrepreneurs, who might typically boost productivity. The Office for National Statistics itself has poured cold water on the increased innovation thesis, claiming that "while there has been an increase in the number of people who are self-employed there has been a reduction in the number of employees who work for the self-employed." Given that these new self-employed work for themselves with no employees of their own, the idea that they are innovative entrepreneurs is a long way from the truth. In reality, the new model army of self-employed consists of former employees in sectors like journalism, media and technology who are now freelancing. And this provides a simple explanation for the productivity puzzle. Job creation that is skewed to self-employment depresses productivity growth. The reason is that the army of self-employed have to carry out tasks in which they have no specialism, and in which they are therefore much less productive. For example, a freelance journalist must spend time managing her IT gremlins, accounts, sales pitches, and so on, rather than focussing entirely on her special skill of writing powerful news stories. This makes her much less productive as a freelancer than as an employee. However, this hit to productivity eventually abates in one of two ways: freelancers gradually become more adept at the new tasks they must undertake; or more likely, they switch back to employee jobs in which they are much more productive. Combining the messages from the first two sections, the Bank of England need not fear labour cost pressures for higher price inflation. Furthermore, with Brexit negotiations progressing at a snail's pace, U.K. based companies are getting increasingly nervous about what their future international trading relationships will look like. So we would strongly bet against the two further rate hikes that the Bank of England has flagged for this tightening cycle. The investment conclusion is to overweight U.K. 10-year gilts versus German 10-year bunds; and underweight GBP/EUR. The Inflation Mini-Cycle Will Turn Down In Early 2018 Last week, we reviewed our mini-cycle framework for the global economy. To recap, the acceleration and deceleration of global bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started in May, we are likely more than half way through the mini-upswing - with an expected end around January/February 2018. At which point, the cycle will enter a mini-downswing. The mini-cycle framework is so powerful that it also perfectly explains the mini-cycles in commodity price inflation - specifically, metals - and unsurprisingly, in overall inflation too. To anybody who still doubts the existence of these remarkably regular mini-cycles, the Chart of the Week and Chart I-8 should put the doubts to rest once and for all. Chart I-8Metal Price Inflation Also Exhibits Remarkably Regular Mini-Cycles Make no mistake. The mini-cycle in commodity prices and overall inflation will turn down in early 2018. So as we approach the year end, use technical opportunities to trim exposure to commodities, commodity equities and commodity currencies. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 From the Monetary Policy Summary and minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting ending on November 1, 2017. 2 From the SF Fed blog 'The Good News on Wage Growth' August 14. 2017. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes' August 10, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* The near 20% rally in Japan's Nikkei 225 since early September has taken its 65-day fractal dimension to its lower bound, suggesting a likelihood of a trend-change. So our recommended trade this week is short Nikkei 225 / long Eurostoxx50 with a profit target / stop loss set at 3%. We now have six 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-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch -##br## Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - ##br##Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The bill is bullish for growth and therefore for the equity markets and the U.S. dollar; The bill consists mostly of tax cuts, not reforms, that favor corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers; The bill is bullish for growth in the short term, but also inflationary and hence a risk to growth in the medium term; A non-populist White House is a relief to the markets, particularly on trade policy, but may mean a more hawkish foreign policy. Feature Chart 1Trump: A Boon For##BR##Main Street And Wall Street Since the November 2016 election, and particularly since President Donald Trump's inauguration, financial markets have celebrated. This is ironic given that on the campaign trail, Trump often adopted populist rhetoric indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, the bête noire of the business community. Trump's cabinet, however, quickly took on a pro-business outlook following the inauguration. Despite appointing several notable trade hawks, the administration sported half a dozen former Goldman Sachs employees. Business confidence soared, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries hanging over CEO's melted away (Chart 1). Both Wall Street and Main Street took one look at President Trump's cabinet at the end of January and decided that there was not an iota of genuine populism in the White House. This view was reinforced by three early decisions by the Trump administration: China: President Trump reneged on his promise to designate China a currency manipulator formally on day one of his administration.1 Instead, he hosted President Xi Jinping at the Mar-A-Lago Summit in April and agreed to engage in trade talks over the rest of the year. (He again declined to accuse China of currency manipulation in October.) Budget: President Trump's "skinny budget" proposal in May oozed with Republican Party orthodoxy, bolstering spending on defense and border security, while calling for drastic cuts to domestic programs. The implication was that future tax cuts would ultimately be "paid for" via draconian fiscal austerity in the distant future. "Breitbart clique" ousted: Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and self-described economic nationalist, was fired in mid-August, with several prominent allies ousted in the wake of his departure. Bannon's departure left Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Enter Tax Cuts The coup-de-grâce of Republican orthodoxy is the just-proposed tax cut plan. The proposal by the House Ways and Means Committee is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and the top-income brackets. As Table 1 clearly illustrates, the household component of the plan is nearly balanced - and therefore deserving of the moniker "reform" - whereas the corporate side of the ledger is closer to a pure and simple cut. Table 12017-2018 Republican Tax Cut Proposal - House Ways And Means Committee (Oct. 2017) Some of the more prominent measures proposed by the House and Ways Committee are: Household Income The highest tax rate remains 39.6%, but would now only kick in at $1 million in taxable income;2 The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be repealed, which hurts the upper middle class and wealthy by limiting tax benefits from a variety of deductions; The estate tax will be fully eliminated by 2024; The standard deduction will be doubled from $12,700 to $24,000, one of the few direct benefits to lower-income families; The plan would repeal the state and local income and sales tax deductions, while capping the state and local property tax deduction to $10,000; Almost all itemized deductions will be eliminated - such as medical expenses, property losses, casualty losses, etc.; The mortgage interest rate deduction for future home purchases will be capped, with only homes up to $500,000 covered. Corporate Income The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35% to 20%; Companies will be able to deduct the full amount of business investments in the year that they are made, although the provision would expire at the end of 2022; The tax rate on income from pass-through businesses would fall to 25%, considerably below the top household income tax rate; Several deductions would be eliminated, including the deduction of interest on debt; The "worldwide" tax system would be overhauled and foreign earnings repatriated: U.S. multinational corporations would pay a 12% tax rate on past profits that they repatriate, while future overseas earnings would be taxed at the new 20% corporate rate. We would caution clients from parsing too carefully through the proposal, lest they waste their time. The Senate is likely to pass a completely different set of proposals. The GOP plan is to get to a "conference committee" as fast as possible, where a new draft legislation can be hammered out from the two disparate proposals. We suspect that this entire process will miss the self-imposed target of "before Christmas," and probably last until the end of the first quarter.3 Nonetheless, we can discern the priorities of the House Republicans by gauging the winners and losers of their proposal. Our immediate take is that the tax cuts greatly benefit upper-income filers (households making over $423,000), moderately hurt upper-middle-class / lower-upper-class filers (those making between $260,000 and $423,000), and are largely neutral for the rest of households. First, the highest income groups are the clear beneficiaries: households making between roughly $450,000 and $1,000,000 will see their income tax rates fall by nearly 5%, by far the largest decrease planned. And, obviously, it is upper-income households that benefit from repealing the estate tax. Meanwhile, the upper middle class takes on the brunt of the burden of "reform": households making between $260,000 and $423,000 will see far fewer benefits under the proposed legislation. First, they are the only income bracket that will see a tax increase, from 33% to 35%. Second, they will not necessarily have the wherewithal to reclassify their income as pass-through business income. Third, many of the itemized deductions that will be eliminated will make a real difference in their filings. Fourth, they were the most likely to purchase homes between $500,000 and $1,000,000, which will no longer be eligible for interest-rate deduction. Fifth, the repeal of the estate tax will make less of a difference for this income group. Sixth, if they are domiciled in high-tax rate states and municipalities, these households will now be limited to how much they can deduct from federal taxes.4 Overall, the proposed tax cut plan fits general Republican orthodoxy.5 It tries to stimulate growth by favoring corporations and the wealthy. For economic growth, the plan is bullish in the short term. Particularly bullish is the ability of corporations to fully deduct the amount of business investment for the next five years. This provision could significantly increase investment in the short term, especially given the implicit threat that the opportunity will expire in 2022.6 Will the plan fail? It could, if enough Republican voters turn against it. The latest polling from Pew research - albeit from April of this year - shows that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 2). On the other hand, Republican and Republican-leaning voters do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 3), and the proposed plan simplifies taxes for some middle-income households by doubling the standard deduction and repealing the AMT. The White House has already begun stressing this feature given that it polls well with voters. Chart 2American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Chart 3...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex Polling suggests that President Trump remains relatively popular with Republican voters despite his dismal polling with the general public (Chart 4). He is polling only slightly below the average of previous Republican presidents at this point in his term in office. As long as Trump remains more popular with Republican voters than his Republican peers in Congress, we think that he will be able to force the tax plan through both the Senate and the House. In fact, we could even see some Democrats in the Senate supporting these tax cuts. Table 2 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin) are especially vulnerable. That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, potentially enough "slack" for the Republicans in the Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Chart 4Trump Remains Popular With GOP Voters Table 22018 Senate Races To Watch Is it even worthwhile to contemplate a scenario in which Republicans pass the tax cuts with Democrat support in the Senate? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska) all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states. Bottom Line: The proposed tax cuts will benefit corporations and the upper-income Americans. The Senate may make some symbolic changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the median American - given that senators have to capture the median voter in their state to win reelection. For example, the estate tax repeal may be scrapped and rules on deducting state and local taxes may be modified. Regardless of how the horse-trading goes, we believe that the U.S. economy will receive a modest stimulus in the form of a roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut (over ten years). Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment and firing on all cylinders, the proposed tax cuts should be marginally bullish for growth and inflation (Chart 5). Chart 5Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped What Do The Tax Cuts Tell Us About President Trump? We are big believers in the theory of "revealed preferences." While this concept was formally applied by economist Paul Samuelson to consumer behavior, we like to apply it to policymakers. The idea is to ignore the rhetoric and focus on what patterns of behavior reveal about genuine preferences. Politicians talk a lot, particularly during an election campaign. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was a clear populist candidate. He only revealed his tax reform plan in late September 2015 and then rarely mentioned it on the campaign trail. While his tax cut proposal languished on the campaign website, Trump focused on rallying voters around a combination of populist promises. These were, in no particular order, to build the border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), to rebuild American infrastructure, to repeal Obamacare, to destroy the Islamic State terrorist movement while disengaging the U.S. from global affairs, and to punish the unfair practices of trade partners like China and Mexico. Fast forward 12 months and we are now half-way to the 2018 mid-term election, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, and yet the only electoral promise that President Trump is even close to achieving is the just-announced tax cut.7 The revealed preference of the Trump administration, at least at this point, is Republican orthodoxy. Trump is a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending, red-blooded Republican. He has eschewed trade conflict with China, ignored infrastructure proposals, largely toed-the-line of foreign policy orthodoxy, and left hedge fund managers - a punching bag on the campaign trail - alone.8 To put it bluntly, Trump's behavior thus far suggests that he is a pluto-populist. A pluto-populist is someone who rules on the behalf of a plutocracy - an oligarchy controlled by the wealthiest citizens - but whose main tactic is to rally the plebeians (the common people) through populist policies. The House's draft tax plan provides sweeping gains for the wealthiest. It also preserves or expands some benefits for the poorest groups, so as to make it politically achievable. The upper middle class - the professional class - stands to suffer the most under the new tax scheme. If this analysis is correct, what does it reveal about President Trump's strategy going forward? Anti-globalization rhetoric is just talk: The fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations ended with a bang: the U.S. delivered four new demands, two of which both Ottawa and Mexico City have identified as non-starters.9 However, in the pluto-populist scenario, even if NAFTA is ultimately abrogated, the Trump administration will ensure that the critical components are preserved in bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. While those agreements are negotiated, the Trump Administration will not raise tariffs to the maximum, "bounded," level as allowed by the WTO. Meanwhile, trade relations with China may still sour in 2018, but they will not produce a trade war. Social unrest could increase: As we argued in a recent Special Report, the American structural context is ripe for more social unrest due to "elite overproduction."10 Trump's policies are likely to feed this condition. Meanwhile, his rhetoric and symbolic gestures will fuel the flames of division in order to play to his base, and force Democrats to argue about how to respond. This would be the populist part of pluto-populism. Hawkish foreign policy: With most of his domestic policies stymied, President Trump will pivot to the foreign theatre. We would particularly watch the growing tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could soon involve Lebanon.11 President Trump has also decertified the Iran nuclear deal, setting the stage for Congress to decide whether it will impose new sanctions and thus abrogate the deal. Plus, there is always North Korea. Bottom Line: Essentially, President Trump's strategy will be to pass pro-business, pro-market economic policies while distracting his largely anti-business, anti-market voters through ancillary issues. Investment Implications On the one hand, this analysis implies a very bullish policy mix as the Trump administration will not do anything domestically that hurts the ongoing bull market. On the other hand, some of those "ancillary" issues could flare up and impact the market, particularly if they involve a ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and North Korea. Chart 6No Debate: There Is No##BR##Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts The one risk that we remain concerned about is protectionism. We expected Trump to be more disruptive this year, and the above analysis suggests that protectionism, too, is merely hot air. However, Trump has only been in office for ten months. The absence of trade tensions with China may be a function of ongoing negotiations with North Korea: the U.S. needs China's cooperation in order to force North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to the table. Ironically, then, a resolution of North Korean tensions could increase America's maneuvering vis-à-vis China, allowing Trump to become a lot more protectionist in 2018.12 Moreover, investors may be overemphasizing headline trade negotiations such as NAFTA or the China talks. The Trump administration may pursue protectionist aims through selective tariffs, such as countervailing and anti-dumping duties, in selective fashion. In other words, investors should pay attention to individual tariff decisions rather than overall negotiations.13 As for his electoral base, as long as President Trump can continue to ensure that they are focused on social disputes at home and hawkish rhetoric abroad, they may not notice the lack of movement on domestic promises. In particular, we have a high-conviction view that the just-proposed tax cuts will do nothing to curb income inequality in the U.S., and will likely deepen it, as previous such GOP-efforts did (Chart 6). Will this hurt President Trump in his 2020 reelection bid? We doubt it. But it does portend still greater socio-economic tensions and political populism in the long run. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The promise was made in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that then-candidate Trump penned on November 9, 2015. Please see Donald J. Trump, "Ending China's Currency Manipulation," dated November 9, 2015, available at wsj.com. 2 The top marginal tax rate of 39.6% is currently applied to single individuals making more than $418,401, a head of household making more than $444,501, and married couples, filing jointly, making more than $470,701. Technically, according to the current draft bill, the top tax rate in the House plan is supposedly about 45.6% between $1-$1.2 million, after which it falls back to 39.6%. A quirk in the proposal holds that once a filer hits $1 million of income, the IRS starts clawing back the $12,000 that the filer saved from having a 12% tax rate on his first $90,000 of income instead of a 25% tax rate. That clawback comes in the form of 6% surtax on income above $1 million. The $12,000 is completely reclaimed once the filer hits $1.2 million. By extension, everyone who makes over $1.2 million has had to pay that extra $12,000 in taxes. 3 For more on how the reconciliation process works, and how it will affect the timeline, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 From a political perspective, the GOP may have simply made a bet that high-tax-rate, blue-state households making $260,000-to-$430,000 do not vote Republican. 5 The congressional budget resolution that sets out the reconciliation instructions for these tax cuts also includes draconian spending cuts, which would presumably help balance the books. Although none of those cuts will pass Congress, they reveal the traditional preference of the Republican party: cut taxes, pay for the cuts by means of a smaller government delivering fewer services. 6 And perhaps this investment boost will come just in time to help re-elect Trump in 2020! 7 Although he deserves some credit for bringing to conclusion the pre-existing fight against the Islamic State. 8 In fact, the House tax bill leaves the "carried interest" tax break in the code. 9 For more on NAFTA, please see our upcoming Special Report with BCA's Global Investment Strategy, to be published on November 10. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Saad Harriri recently resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia, claiming that he feared for his life due to Iranian influence in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia itself is engaged in deep political struggle. 12 Indeed, in our original forecast of Trump's trade policy, we surmised that 2017 would largely be a year of negotiations, while 2018 would see the real fireworks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 An important such decision looms by January 12, 2018, which is the deadline by which President Trump must decide whether to impose "safeguard" tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.

Neutral The news that talks between Sprint and T-Mobile over a possible merger had ceased has hurt the S&P telecom services index this week (top panel). The potential tie-up would have created a much stronger competitor to the AT&T/Verizon oligopoly in the mobile industry. This summer, when rumors of the merger were first circling, we posited that reducing competition at the low end of the market would be margin accretive, particularly as U.S. consumer spending on telecom services was surging (second panel); in that context, we upgraded the index to neutral. Spending has now fallen back into deflation as competition has intensified; earnings seem likely to suffer in the near term. Anecdotally, both T and VZ reported earnings contractions in Q3 despite solid subscriber growth, corroborating the deflationary price environment. However, the weak earnings outlook has been priced into the index, which is now trading at its cheapest level in more than a decade (bottom panel). Accordingly, our neutral thesis is dented, but not broken; we recommend staying on the sidelines to watch the industry shake out. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, CTL. Telecoms Are Cheap For A Good Reason

Highlights Chart 1Fed Must Fall Behind The Curve Jerome Powell will assume the Fed Chairmanship at a critical juncture for monetary policy. Core PCE inflation is still well below the Fed's 2% target, and yet, the slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is a mere 71 bps (Chart 1). Such a flat yield curve alongside such low inflation suggests that the market believes the Fed will tighten the yield curve into inversion before inflation even regains the Fed's target. That would be an unprecedented policy mistake that the new Chairman will seek to avoid at all costs. This means either inflation will soon rise, justifying the FOMC's median rate hike projections, or inflation will stay low and the Fed will be forced to take a dovish turn. Either way the Fed must "fall behind the curve" and start chasing inflation higher. The act of falling behind the inflation curve means that long-maturity TIPS breakevens are likely to widen, the yield curve will steepen and the policy back-drop will stay accommodative for spread product. We recommend positioning for all three of these outcomes. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 288 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month, and now sits at 97 bps. Two weeks ago we noted that there is simply not much room for investment grade corporate spreads to tighten.1 Looking at 12-month breakeven spreads shown as a percentile rank relative to history, we see that A-rated paper has only been more expensive than it is today 7% of the time. Baa-rated paper has been more expensive only 9% of the time (Chart 2).2 Further, we calculate that at current duration levels Baa-rated option-adjusted spreads can only tighten another 36 bps before the sector is more expensive than it has ever been. Similarly, A-rated spreads can tighten another 14 bps, Aa-rated spreads another 17 bps and Aaa-rated spreads another 7 bps. All this to say that corporate bonds are essentially a carry trade at this stage of the cycle. The important question is how much longer we can pick up the carry before a period of significant spread widening. With low inflation keeping monetary policy accommodative and accelerating profit growth putting downward pressure on leverage (bottom 2 panels), the carry trade appears safe for now (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3B Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 51 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 580 bps. The index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 9 bps on the month, and currently sits at 339 bps. Based on our current forecast for default losses we calculate that, if junk spreads remain flat, high-yield excess returns will be 230 bps for the next 12 months. If spreads tighten by 100 bps we should expect excess returns of 606 bps, and if spreads widen by 100 bps we should expect excess returns of -145 bps (Chart 3). Given that the OAS for the high-yield index can only tighten another 139 bps before it reaches all-time expensive valuations, 606 bps is a fairly optimistic excess return projection. But equally, with inflation pressures still muted and monetary policy still accommodative, more than 100 bps of spread widening is also unlikely. Our base case forecast is that high-yield excess returns will be between 2% and 5% (annualized) on a 6-12 month investment horizon.3 In a recent report we noted that high-yield generally looks more attractive than investment grade after adjusting for differences in spread volatility between the two sectors.4 Specifically, we calculate that it will take 39 days of average spread tightening before B-rated bonds reach all-time expensive levels. The same calculation shows it will take 19 days for A-rated debt. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 31 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread was roughly flat on the month, as was the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Last month we upgraded Agency MBS from underweight to neutral, noting that OAS have become significantly more attractive during the past year, particularly relative to corporate credit (Chart 4). The spread widening likely resulted from the market pricing-in the impact of the Fed's balance sheet run-off. Now that the run-off has begun, and its future pace has been well telegraphed, its impact has probably also been fully priced. While OAS is the correct measure of MBS carry because it adjusts for expected losses due to prepayments, it is the change in the nominal spread that determines capital gains and losses. With that in mind, it is difficult to see a catalyst for significantly wider nominal MBS spreads on a 6-12 month horizon. The two factors that correlate most closely with nominal MBS spreads - credit spreads and mortgage refinancings - are likely to stay depressed (bottom panel). Higher mortgage rates would obviously prevent refinancings from rising. But we showed in a recent report that even if rates move lower the coupon and age distribution of outstanding mortgages has made refi activity much less sensitive to rates than in the past.5 Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 193 bps. Sovereign bonds underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month. Foreign and Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 2 bps and 9 bps, respectively. Supranationals outperformed by 4 bps. The underperformance in Sovereigns was concentrated in Mexican debt, which sold off as the White House took a hard line on NAFTA negotiations. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 62 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 367 bps (Chart 5). Excess returns for Local Authority debt - mostly taxable municipal debt and USD-denominated Canadian provincial debt - have exceeded excess returns from Baa-rated corporate debt so far this year, despite the sector's average credit rating of Aa3/A1. In a recent report we looked at whether USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt is an attractive alternative to U.S. high-yield corporates.6 We observed that hard currency EM sovereigns and similarly rated U.S. corporate bonds offer almost exactly the same breakeven spread, and also that EM Sovereigns have been getting comparatively cheaper since early last year. Further, we observed that periods when EM Sovereigns outperform U.S. corporates tend to coincide with falling U.S. rate hike expectations, as measured by our 24-month fed funds discounter. At present, our 24-month discounter is at 74 bps, meaning the market expects less than three Fed hikes during the next two years. We anticipate a better opportunity to move into EM Sovereigns once U.S. rate hike expectations have adjusted higher. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in October (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Munis have outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 251 bps, year-to-date. The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio edged down in October and currently sits at 87%, still extremely tight relative to its post-crisis trading range. M/T yield ratios look much more attractive at the long-end of the curve (Chart 6), and we continue to recommend that investors extend maturity within their municipal bond allocations. Congress released its first draft of proposed tax legislation last week, and while it will certainly undergo some changes in the coming months, it appears as though it will not be very negative for municipal bondholders. Crucially, the top marginal personal tax rate remains unchanged at 39.6% and demand for munis should benefit from the removal of other deductions. A reduction of the corporate tax rate to 20% remains a risk, but that will likely be revised higher as the bill is re-written. Fundamentally, state & local government health improved sharply in Q3, with net borrowing likely falling to $157 billion from $211 billion in Q2, assuming that corporate tax revenues are unchanged (Chart 6).7 The rate of growth in state & local tax revenues now exceeds expenditures and that should put further downward pressure on borrowing in the coming quarters. However, a decline in state & local government borrowing is already reflected in historically tight M/T yield ratios. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in October alongside a sharp move higher in the expected pace of Fed rate hikes (Chart 7). The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 8 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps. The upward adjustment in rate hike expectations benefited our recommendation to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That trade is now 13 bps in the money since it was initiated on July 10. Further, the July 2018 contract is still discounting fewer than two rate hikes between now and next July. If two more hikes are delivered by July our trade will earn an additional 5 bps. If three more hikes are delivered it will earn an additional 31 bps. In a recent report we discussed why the Fed must soon "fall behind the curve" on inflation and allow the yield curve to steepen.8 Essentially, unless the Fed starts to chase inflation higher it will soon invert the yield curve without having met its inflation goal. That would be a severe policy mistake. This means that either inflation must start to rise, or the Fed must slow its pace of rate hikes. Both scenarios lead to a steeper yield curve. We continue to position for a steeper curve via a long position in the 5-year bullet versus a short position in the 2/10 barbell. At the moment our model shows the 5-year bullet trading roughly in-line with its fair value, or alternatively that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for an unchanged 2/10 slope on a 6-month horizon.9 TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 33 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -99 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 4 bps on the month but, at 1.86%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. As was pointed out on the front page of this report, the Fed must "fall behind the curve" on inflation if it wants to avoid a policy mistake. Our expectation is that this will occur because inflation will move higher in the coming months. The 6-month rate of change in trimmed mean PCE has already bounced off its lows (Chart 8) and pipeline measures of inflation are soaring (panels 3 & 4). However, even if inflation remains stubbornly low, we think any downside in long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will prove fleeting. We are approaching an inflection point where if inflation does not rise the Fed will have to adopt a much more dovish policy stance. This should limit any downside in long-dated breakevens. As long as the Fed can maintain interest rates low enough for realized inflation to eventually recover to its target, then we anticipate that long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that occurs. According to our model, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently trading in-line with other financial market variables - oil, the trade-weighted dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (panel 2). ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 81 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed the benchmark by 32 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 176 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 5 bps in October and, at 33 bps, it remains well below its average pre-crisis trading range. We continue to favor credit cards over auto loans within Aaa-rated ABS, despite the modest additional spread pick-up available in autos (Chart 9). The main reason is that auto loan net losses have been trending steadily higher for several years while credit card charge-offs are still depressed (panel 4). However, even the credit card space is starting to see rising delinquency rates, albeit off a low base, and banks are tightening lending standards on both auto loans and cards (bottom panel). We expect that tight labor markets and solid income growth will prevent a surge in consumer delinquencies, but these are nonetheless troubling signals that bear monitoring. From a valuation perspective, with the 33 bps OAS offered from Aaa-rated Consumer ABS now only slightly higher than the 29 bps offered by Agency Residential MBS, we advocate a neutral allocation to consumer ABS. Further increases in delinquencies could warrant an eventual downgrade, stay tuned. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 71 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 182 bps. The index option-adjusted spread (OAS) for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened sharply in October, from 74 bps to 65 bps. At current levels it is now one standard deviation below its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). With spreads at such low levels in an environment of tightening commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, we view the risk/reward trade-off in non-Agency CMBS as quite unfavorable. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 96 bps. The index OAS for Agency CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month but, at 46 bps, the sector continues to offer an attractive spread pick-up relative to other low-risk spread product. The Aaa-rated consumer ABS OAS is only 33 bps, and the OAS on conventional 30-year Agency MBS is a mere 29 bps. Such an attractive spread pick-up in a sector that benefits from Agency backing is probably worth grabbing. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.69% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.67%. The Global Manufacturing PMI increased to 53.5 in October, its highest level in six-and-a-half years. Bullish sentiment toward the dollar also edged higher, but not by enough to prevent the fair value reading from our 2-factor Treasury model from climbing. Last month's fair value reading was 2.65%. The U.S. and Eurozone PMIs continued to trend up, while the Chinese PMI held flat. The Japanese PMI ticked down from 52.9 to 52.8. Most importantly, of the 36 countries we track 34 now have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. The global economic recovery has become incredibly broad based, a bearish development for U.S. Treasury yields. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.33%. 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We use breakeven spreads to adjust for the changing duration of the index over time. We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as option-adjusted spread divided by duration. We ignore the impact of convexity. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Yet Another Update", dated October 10, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

We lifted the S&P energy index to an overweight stance on July 10, and in Q3 the energy complex bested the market by over 200bps. We cited a soft U.S. dollar, firming demand, constrained supply growth and still-compelling valuations as reasons to go overweight; these have started to move in our favor, signaling more upside ahead. Importantly, energy producers are a levered play on oil prices and the latter have jumped roughly $11/bbl to $55/bbl or ~24% since July 10th, but energy stocks are up only 7% in absolute terms (second panel). Given BCA's still sanguine crude oil market view, we expect a significant catch up phase in energy equity prices into 2018. On the supply front, the rig count peaked in late July, and Cushing and OECD oil stocks are now contracting. Tack on the synchronized global growth macro backdrop, and the upshot is that global oil demand will continue to grind higher (third panel). Valuations have ticked up recently but on a price to book and price to sales basis, energy stocks still sport compelling multiples (bottom panel). Adding it up, firming oil prices, the depreciated U.S. dollar, continued global energy producer restraint and still compelling valuations argue for maintaining an above benchmark allocation in the S&P energy index. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details. Content

Special Report

Highlights Three factors point to stable or narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: the improving health of global banks, the end of the adjustment to the regulatory change affecting prime-money market funds, and the relaxation to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio rules by the U.S. Treasury. Four factors point to wider basis swap spreads: BCA's forecast that U.S. loan growth will pick up, our view on U.S. inflation, the coming decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the potential for U.S. repatriation. We expect USD basis swap spreads to widen again, which suggests increasing FX vol. This would hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar bloc currencies. Feature The rather arcane topic of cross-currency basis swap spreads has periodically surfaced in the news in the past few years. The widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads has been highlighted as one of the key factors explaining why covered interest rate parity relationships (the link between the price of FX forward, spot prices and interest rate differentials) have not held as closely after the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) as before. The widening of cross-currency basis swap spreads has also been highlighted as a factor behind the strength in the U.S. dollar in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, the recent narrowing in the cross-currency basis swap spread has been highlighted as a factor behind the weakness in the USD this year. This week we delve a little deeper into what cross-currency basis swap spread measures, and what some of its major determinants are. We ultimately expect the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen again, which should contribute to a stronger dollar and increased global FX volatility. What Is A Cross-Currency Basis Swap? To examine what drives cross-currency basis swap spreads, one first needs to understand what these instruments are. Let's begin with a regular FX swap. An FX swap in EUR/USD is a contract through which two counterparties agree to exchange EURs for USDs today, with a reversal of that exchange at the maturity of the contract - a reversal set at a predetermined exchange rate simply equal to the forward value of the EUR/USD. So, if counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. The transaction does not end there. Simultaneously, the FX swap forces B to give back the X million EURs to counterparty A at maturity, while counterparty A gives back X million EUR times the EUR/USD forward rate in U.S. dollars to counterparty B. This forward rate is the rate prevalent when the contract was agreed upon. The transactions are illustrated in the top panel of Chart 1. Chart 1FX Swaps Vs. Cross Currency Basis Swaps The problem with regular FX swaps is that they offer little liquidity at extended maturities. If market players want to hedge long-term liabilities and assets, they tend to do so using a cross-currency basis swap, where much more liquidity is available at long maturities. A EUR/USD cross currency basis swap begins in the same way as a regular FX swap: counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, and the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. However, this is where the similarities end. A cross-currency basis swap has exchanges of cash flows through its term. Counterparty B, which provided USDs to counterparty A, receives 3-month USD Libor, while counterparty A, which provided EURs to counterparty B, received 3-month EUR Libor + a (alpha being the cross-currency basis swap spread). At the maturity of the contract, counterparty A and B both receive their regular intermediary cash flows, and also re-exchange their respective principal - but this time at the same spot rate as the one that existed at the entry of the contract (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 2A Bigger Funding Gap Equals##BR##A Wider Basis Swap Spread In both regular FX and cross-currency basis swaps, counterparties have removed their FX risks, except that in the latter, the interest differentials have been paid during the life of the contract instead of being factored through the forward premium/discount. This is fine and dandy, but it leaves a unexplained. The cross currency basis swap spread (a), is a direct function of the relative supply and demand for each currency. If investors demand a lot of EUR in the swap market relative to its supply, a will be positive. If they demand more USDs, a will be negative. A good example of this dynamic is the funding gap of banks. Let's take the Japanese example. Japanese banks have a surplus of domestic deposits (thanks to the massive savings of the Japanese corporate sector) relative to their yen lending. As a result, they have large dollar lending operations. To hedge their dollar assets, Japanese banks borrow USD in large quantities in the cross-currency swap market. This tends to result in a negative swap spread in the yen (Chart 2). This is particularly true if both the banking sector and the other actors in the economy (institutional investors and non-financial firms) also borrow dollars in the swap market to hedge dollar assets, which is the case in Japan (Chart 3). Chart 3Japanese Investors Are Accumulating Assets Abroad Additionally, if there are perceived solvency risks in the European banking sector, this should further weigh on the cross-currency basis swap spread, pushing it deeper into negative territory, as the viability of the main EUR counterparties becomes at risk. The same dance is true for any currency pair. The other factor that affects USD cross-currency basis swap spreads is the supply of U.S. dollars, especially the room on large banks' balance sheets to service these markets. The cross-currency basis swap spread could be close to zero if large arbitrageurs take offsetting positions to arbitrage the spread away, doing so until the spread disappears. However, with the imposition of Basel III and Dodd-Franks, banks have been constrained in their capacity to do this. Indeed, increased leverage ratio requirements (now banks need to post more capital behind repo transactions as well as collateralized lending and other derivatives) mean that arbitraging cross-currency basis swap spreads and deviations from covered interest rate parity has become much more expensive. Furthermore, the increase in Tier 1 capital ratios associated with these regulations has forced banks to de-lever; however, engaging in arbitrage activities still requires plenty of leverage (Chart 4). Chart 4The Structural Gap In The Basis Swap##BR##Spread Reflects Regulation Economic Factors Driving The Spread The factors that we look at essentially relate to the supply of USD available for lending in offshore markets, as well as determinants of relative counterparty risks between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Factors Arguing For Narrower Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads 1. Global Banks Health Chart 5Banks Perceived Health##BR##Determines Basis Swap Spreads The price-to-book ratio of global banks outside the U.S. has been largely correlated with USD cross-currency swap spreads. When global banks get de-rated, spreads widen, and it becomes more expensive to hedge USD positions in the swap market (Chart 5). This is because as investors perceive the solvency of global banks deteriorating, they impose a penalty as the Herstatt risk increases. Additionally, solvency problems can force banks to scramble to access USD funding, prompting deeper spreads. BCA is positive on global financials and sees continued improvement in European NPLs. This means that solvency risk concerns are likely to remain on the backburner for now, pointing to narrower basis swap spreads. 2. Supplementary Leverage Ratio Changes In June, the U.S. Treasury announced a relaxation of some of its rules on supplementary leverage ratios, lowering the amount of capital required to support activity in the repo market behind initial margins for centrally cleared derivatives, and behind holdings of Treasurys. This means that commercial banks in the U.S. can have bigger balance sheets and more room to engage in arbitrage activity, implying a greater supply of dollars in the USD cross-currency basis swap market. In response to last June's proposal, basis swap spreads narrowed by 11 basis points. BCA believes these changes will continue to support dollar liquidity, and will further help in narrowing cross-currency basis swap spreads. 3. Prime Money-Market Funds Debacle Is Over Chart 6More Expensive Bank Funding##BR##= Wider Basis Swap Spreads In October 2016, regulatory changes were implemented that allowed prime money market funds to have fluctuating net asset values. Obviously, this meant that prime money-market funds would be not-so-prime anymore. As a result, to remain the ultra-safe vehicles that they once were, prime money-market funds de-risked. As a result, they cut their exposure to risky activities in anticipation of these changes. In practice, a key source of short-term funding for banks evaporated from the market, putting upward pressure on bank financing costs. As the LIBOR-OIS spread increased, so did basis-swap spreads (Chart 6): as it became more expensive for banks to finance themselves, they had to curtail the supply of USDs provided to the swap market, an activity normally requiring intense demand on banks' balance sheets. This adjustment is now over, suggesting limited potential widening in USD basis swap spreads. Factors Arguing For Wider Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads 1. U.S. Loan Growth When U.S. banks increase their loan formation activity, USD cross-currency basis swap spreads widen (Chart 7). As banks increase their extension of credit through loans, they decrease the amount of securities they hold on their balance sheets (Chart 8). This means there is less supply of liquidity available for balance sheet activities, particularly providing dollar funding in the offshore market. In the Basel III / Dodd-Frank world, less-liquid bank balance sheets are synonymous with wider USD basis-swap spreads. As we argued last week, increasing U.S. capex, easing lending standards for firms and rising household income levels should result in increasing loan growth in the U.S. which will result in lower abundance of liquid assets and a widening basis swap spreads.1 Chart 7More Bank Loans Lead##BR##To Wider Swap Spreads Chart 8More Debt Equals Less##BR##Securities In Bank Credit 2. U.S. Inflation There is a fairly close relationship between U.S. inflation and the USD basis swap spread, where a higher core CPI tends to lead to a wider spread (Chart 9). The fall in U.S. inflation this year likely contributed to the narrowing in basis swap spreads. Our take on this is that as inflation falls, it gives an incentive for banks to hold low-yielding liquidity on their balance sheets as real returns on cash improve. This fuels a gigantic carry trade through the basis-swap market. We expect inflation to pick up meaningfully by mid-2018, which should widen cross-currency basis swap spreads.2 Chart 9When U.S. Inflation Increases, Swap Spreads Widen 3. Central Bank Balance Sheets When the Federal Reserve increases the size of its balance sheet relative to other balance sheets, this tends to lead to a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as the global supply of dollars relative to other currencies increases. The opposite is also true. This relationship did not work after late 2016 (Chart 10). However, during that episode, as the change in prime money-market funds caused a dislocation in banks' funding, commercial banks exhibited cautious behavior and increased their reserves with the Fed. As Chart 11 illustrates, there is a tight relationship between the change in commercial banks' reserves held at the Fed and cross-currency basis swap spreads. Going forward, as the Fed lets it balance sheet run off, we expect to see a decrease in commercial banks' excess reserves. This could contribute to upward movement in the basis swap spread. Chart 10Smaller Fed Balance Sheet Leads##BR##To Wider Basis Swap Spreads Chart 11Fed Runoff Could Widen##BR##Basis Swap Spreads 4. U.S. Repatriations Chart 12U.s. Repatriations Support Wider##BR##Basis Swap Spreads The most revealing relationship unearthed in our study was that when U.S. entities repatriate funds at home, this tends to put strong widening pressure on the USD cross-currency basis swap spread (Chart 12). U.S. businesses hold large cash piles abroad - by some estimates more than US$2.5 trillion. However, most of these funds are held in highly liquid, high-quality U.S.-dollar assets offshore. These assets are perfect collaterals for various transactions in the interbank market. The funds held abroad by U.S. firms are a source of supply for U.S. dollars in the offshore markets. When U.S. entities bring assets back home, the widening in the basis swap spread essentially reflects a decline in the supply of USD in offshore markets, and vice versa when Americans export capital abroad. BCA's base case is that tax cuts are likely to hit the U.S. economy in 2018, even if the growing feud between Trump and the establishment Republican party members is a growing risk. BCA still views a tax repatriation as a higher-likelihood event, as it is the easiest way for the U.S. government to bring funds into its coffers. The 2004 tax repatriation under former President George W. Bush did result in substantial fund repatriation in the U.S. This time will not be different. We expect any such tax repatriation to cause a potentially large deficit of supply in the USD offshore markets, which could create a strong widening basis on the cross-currency basis swap spread in favor of the dollar. Bottom Line: Three factors argue for USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to stay at current levels, or even narrow further. These factors are the health of global banks, the easing in U.S. supplementary leverage ratios and the end of the adjustment of U.S. bank funding to new regulations affecting prime money-market funds. On the other hand four factors points to wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: BCA's positive outlook for U.S. credit growth; BCA's positive outlook on U.S. inflation; the run-off of the Fed's balance sheet; and the potential for U.S. entities repatriating funds from abroad. Potential Direction And Investment Implications We anticipate USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen over the coming 12 months. We think the easing in the Supplementary Leverage Ratios rules by the U.S. Treasury is the most important factor pointing to narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads. However, Basel III rules and most of Dodd-Frank are still in place, which suggest there remains large constraints on the balance-sheet activities of global banks, which will limit the potential for a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as U.S. banks will remain constrained in their ability to supply U.S. dollars in the offshore market. Chart 13Wider Basis Swap Spreads Equals Higher Vol On the other hand many factors support wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads, most important of which is the potential for more credit growth. This is in our view a very strong force as it requires banks to ration the use of their balance sheets, limiting their activity in the offshore market. Moreover, we do foresee a high probability of tax repatriation, which would put strong widening pressure on the swap spreads. In terms of implications, wider USD basis swap spreads tend to be associated with rising FX vols (Chart 13). As we highlighted in a Special Report last year, higher FX vols are poison for carry trades.3 As such, we think that widening swap spreads could spur a period of trouble for traditional carry currencies. This means EM and dollar-block currencies are likely to suffer in this environment. Additionally, in China, Xi Jinping is consolidating power and has taken control of the Politburo. This implies he now has more room to implement reforms. Removal of growth targets after 2020, removal of growth as a criterion for grading local officials, a focus on balanced growth, and a focus on combatting pollution all suggest that Chinese growth is unlikely to follow the same debt-fueled, capex-led model.4 This will weigh on Chinese imports of raw materials, and hurt export volumes and prices for many EM countries and commodities producers. This means these policies represent a headwind for many carry currencies. Moreover, historically, wider USD funding costs have been associated with a stronger dollar, as it makes it more expensive to hedge dollar assets. Thus, in an environment where U.S. interest rates are rising relative to the rest of the world - making U.S. assets attractive - wider basis swap spreads are an additional factor that could lift the dollar. Bottom Line: We anticipate the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen over the next 12 months. This will be associated with higher FX vols, which hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar-block currencies. Chinese reforms will reinforce these risks. Additionally, wider basis swap spreads will create support for the USD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "All About Credit", dated October 20, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Conflicting Forces For The Dollar", dated September 8, 2017, and "Is The Dollar Expensive?", dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything", dated October 25, 2017 and Special Report, titled "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech", dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Implications For The Global Fixed Income Investor Chart A1FX Basis Swaps Boosting##BR##Hedged European Yields The outlook for cross-currency basis swap spreads has important implications for global fixed income investors. Chiefly, a wider (more negative) basis swap spread makes it more profitable for U.S. investors to lend U.S. dollars. For example, the top panel of Chart A1 shows that if a U.S.-based investor swaps dollars for euros on a 3-month horizon, and then invests those euros in 10-year German bunds, they will earn a hedged yield of 2.5% (annualized). This compares to a current yield of 2.3% on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note. If the basis swap spread were zero, then the U.S. investor would face a hedged German 10-year yield of only 2.1%. Conversely, a deeply negative basis swap spread works against non-U.S. investors looking to gain exposure to the U.S. bond market. If a Eurozone-based investor swaps euros for dollars on a 3-month horizon and then invests those dollars in 10-year U.S. Treasuries, he will earn a hedged yield of 0.1% (annualized). This compares to a current yield of 0.4% on 10-year German bunds. If the basis swap spread were zero, then the European investor would face a more enticing hedged U.S. 10-year yield of 0.6%. The middle three panels of Chart A1 show the 10-year yields in other Eurozone bond markets from the perspective of a U.S.-based investor who has hedged his currency risk on a 3-month horizon, as per the strategy explained above. The bottom panel of Chart A1 shows that the deviation of the EUR/USD basis swap spread from zero currently adds 42 basis points to the hedged yields faced by a U.S. investor. Charts A2, A3, A4 and A5 present the same analysis for other major bond markets, again from the perspective of a U.S. based investor.5 Chart A2FX Basis Swaps Boosting Hedged Gilt Yields Chart A3FX Basis Swaps Boosting Hedged JGB Yields Chart A4FX Basis Swaps Boosting##BR##Hedged Canadian Yields Chart A5FX Basis Swaps Are NOT Boosting##BR##Hedged Australian Yields The Impact Of Hedging Costs On Returns Of course, the basis swap spread is only one input to hedging costs. Once again, using the example of a U.S.-based investor looking for exposure in European bond markets, we calculate the hedging cost as: (1 + Hedging Cost) = (1 + 3-month EUR LIBOR + basis swap spread) / (1 + 3-month USD LIBOR) Right now the hedging cost in the above example is below zero. This is why German bund yields actually appear more attractive to U.S. investors after taking hedging costs into account. But what's more interesting is that total returns in 7-10 year German bunds (hedged into USD) relative to total returns in 7-10 year U.S. Treasury notes track hedging costs very closely over time (Chart A6). Chart A6Hedging Costs Will Continue To Boost Hedged German Bond Returns As The Fed Hikes Rates This is highly logical. As hedging costs become more negative, it means that U.S.-based investors make more money swapping U.S. dollars for euros. Therefore, a strategy of swapping dollars for euros, and then placing the proceeds in 7-10 year German bunds should continue to be a profitable one for U.S. investors as long as hedging costs continue to decline. Fortunately for U.S. investors, hedging costs should become even more negative during the next 12 months. In our base case scenario, we assume that the Federal Reserve will lift rates by 100bps by the end of 2018. We also assume that the ECB will not lift rates during this timeframe. That divergence in policy rates on its own will drive hedging costs further into negative territory, and it will only be exacerbated if the cross-currency basis swap spread widens as we anticipate. We illustrate the impact of the cross-currency basis swap spread on hedging costs in the bottom panel of Chart A6. The panel shows where hedging costs will go between now and the end of 2018, assuming policy rates move as we described above, and that the basis swap spread either widens to -100 bps or tightens back to zero. It is evident that a sharp widening in basis swap spreads would be a boon for U.S. investors in foreign bond markets. Bottom Line: Deeply negative basis swap spreads make it more profitable to lend dollars on a short-term horizon. This presents an opportunity for U.S. investors to swap dollars for foreign currencies and invest in non-U.S. bond markets. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 5 While the basis swap spread between the U.S. and most countries is negative, it is actually positive between the U.S. and Australia. So in this case the basis swap spread makes Australian bonds look less attractive to U.S. investors. Conversely, the basis swap spread makes U.S. bonds look slightly more attractive to Australian investors.

Highlights Powell's nomination will not change the Fed's gradual rate hike path, but open Board seats are a worry. Household debt growth is slower than usual, but auto debt levels are a concern. Stocks will beat bonds and oil will rise after EPS growth peaks next year. Funding liquidity should remain adequate as the Fed unwinds its balance sheet. Feature Last week was an extraordinarily busy week for U.S. financial markets, but BCA's view on the economy, the Fed and asset class returns remains the same. President Trump named Jerome Powell to replace Janet Yellen as Fed Chair and the GOP released additional details of their tax plan. The October readings on employment, manufacturing, and wage growth fell short of expectations. However, data on consumer confidence, non-manufacturing ISM and vehicle sales for October exceeded expectations. The Q3 Employment Cost Index will give Fed policymakers confidence that the Phillips curve is not dead, but the persistent weakness in unit labor costs (the Q3 data was released last week) will concern the FOMC. The Fed remains on track to raise rates by 0.25% in December and three more times in 2018, matching their dot plot. While average hourly earnings disappointed in October, the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma make the data difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, the year-over-year growth in the 3-month moving average of average hourly earnings was 2.6% in October, up from 2.5% in July, before Harvey made landfall in Texas. Moreover, real GDP is growing faster than the economy's long term potential (1.8% per the Fed), and at 4.1%, the unemployment rate is well below the Fed's measure of full employment (4.6%) (Chart 1). Jerome Powell will continue to pursue the gradual rate hikes preferred by his predecessor. However, Powell is the first Fed Chair since G. William Miller (1978-79) to not have a PhD in economics. He is not known as a policy hawk or a dove, and this lack of conviction in his own policy suggests that he will rely on more on his Board colleagues for direction than recent chairs. The potential power shift from the chair to the committee may make FOMC communications more difficult to interpret. After Yellen departs the Fed early next year, the seven-member board will be down to just four, providing Trump the opportunity to further shape monetary policy. Table 1 provides Powell's comments on key aspects of the economy, monetary and regulatory policy. Chart 1Labor Market Conditions Tightening##BR##And Support More Rate Hikes Table 1Powell On Monetary Policy, The Economy And Regulation BCA expects that Powell, a Republican, will be confirmed by the Senate and preside over the FOMC meeting in March 2018. Powell already sits on the Fed Board. In 2012 President Obama appointed Powell to the Fed to fill an unexpired term. The Senate voted 74-21 to confirm. Two years later, Powell was confirmed 67-21 for a full term (14 years) as a governor. Fifty-one votes are required for confirmation. BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, wrote about the potential for change at Federal Reserve Board earlier this year.1 The bottom line is that looming changes in the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors are important, but we doubt that the overall integrity of the Fed will be seriously compromised by bad appointments. However, at this stage, it is futile to guess who the Administration will choose. Regardless of who controls the Fed, there always will be the potential for errors because their economic models (along with everybody else's) are imprecise, data can be unreliable, and the policy tools are crude. Some uptick in inflation is likely and would even be desirable, but it will not be allowed to get out of control. The bigger uncertainty is what will happen after the next economic downturn because even the most hawkish policymakers may be forced to embrace inflationary policies that will make the past cycle's actions pale by comparison. Subprime Auto Sector Signals Household deleveraging has ended, but consumers are reticent to take on new debt despite an improving labor market and record household net worth. Household debt is growing at under 2% a year, less than half the pre-crisis pace. Moreover, household debt relative to disposable income remains well below a decade ago, but the household indebtedness profile is not uniform. While the debt-to-disposable income ratio of mortgage and revolving consumer credit has moved lower, the ratio of non-revolving credit (which includes both auto and student loan debt) has moved up since 2010 and surpassed the 15.8% pre-crisis peak in 2012 (Chart 2). Chart 2Household Debt By Sector In 2016, 34% of U.S. families had vehicle loans, up from a low of 30% in 2010. In 2004-2007, more than one-third of U.S. families carried auto debt (Chart 3). The median value of households' auto loans is $13,000 (in 2016 dollars), up from $11,000 in 2010, but still below the 2004-2007 peak of $14,000 (Chart 4). However, delinquency rates are on the rise in those areas where consumers have been adding debt (credit cards, auto loans and student loans) (Chart 5). Chart 3Rise In % Of Families With Auto Loan Debt... Chart 4...But Auto Debt Levels Are Manageable In particular, default rates in auto and student loans are above their mid-2000s readings, but are below their 2010-2012 zenith. Lending standards for vehicle loans were easy at the start of the decade, became less so recently and then turned restrictive in mid-2016. In the mid-2000s, borrowing guidelines for student loans and credit cards (data on bank lending standards for auto loans began in 2011) were easy in 2004-2007. Banks are taking a cautious approach to consumer lending in this cycle. The gradual tightening of lending criteria between 2010 and 2016 led to a drop in the average FICO score for new auto loans. However, as standards tightened in 2016 and into the first quarter of 2017, the average FICO escalated. FICO scores for new vehicle loans moved sharply lower in Q2; it may be a new trend or perhaps a blip in the data. Even with the latest dip, the FICO for new auto loans (698) is well above the 675-685 range that prevailed in 2004-2006 (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5Consumer Loan Metrics Chart 6ABS Market Overview Subprime auto loans as a percentage of all auto loans remain well below pre-crisis levels and should limit a wave of subprime auto defaults in the years ahead. Only 22% of the $148 billion in new vehicle loans recorded in Q2 2017 were issued to borrowers with FICO scores below 620. The latest reading is in the middle of the range that has been in effect since 2010 (18-25%). Between 2004 and 2007, the share of auto loans issued to subprime borrowers was as high as 32% in 2006 and averaged 28%. The FOMC has elevated financial stability in its recent deliberations2 and is watching for imbalances. The September 20-21 FOMC meeting minutes noted that "Subprime auto loan balances have declined so far this year, partly reflecting the tighter lending standards, and the average credit score of all borrowers who obtained an auto loan in the second quarter remained near the upper end of its range of the past few years." We expect the Fed to remain vigilant on this issue. Bottom Line: Household debt ratios are well below the pre-2007 peak, but consumers are piling on more auto debt. While delinquency rates for auto debt are rising, banks are tightening lending requirements and have not extended auto credit to subprime borrowers outside of historical norms. If household incomes, the stock market and housing prices rise, and banks and regulators remain vigilant, then the subprime auto sector would not pose a systemic risk to the U.S. economy or financial system.3 BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service prefers Aaa-rated credit card ABS over Aaa-rated auto loan ABS (Chart 6). Investment Direction After EPS Peak Chart 7Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon The BCA earnings model shows that S&P 500 EPS growth is peaking and should slow through 2018 toward a level commensurate with 3½-4% nominal GDP growth (Chart 7). Accordingly, BCA believes that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for the equity market, albeit a smaller force. This forecast excludes any positive effects on growth from tax cuts that would encourage EPS and the S&P 500 index in the short term, although this would also bring forward Fed rate hikes. We will provide an update on the Q3 earnings reporting season in next week's report. Investors are questioning what will happen to risk assets after earnings growth peaks, but before it slips below zero (Table 2). BCA has identified seven episodes between 1973 and 2015 when S&P 500 EPS growth reached a top and subsequently dipped below zero. Four of the seven periods (1973-75, 1976-80, 1988-1991, and 1993-2001) partially overlapped with recessions. The U.S. economy was in recession during the entire 1973-75 period but the recession occurred at or near the end in the other three occurrences. U.S. stocks, Treasuries and oil behave consistently during these periods. The performance of gold, the dollar, small caps (relative to large) and high yield (relative to Treasuries) is not consistent, and investment-grade corporate debt underperformed Treasuries in six of the seven intervals. On average, stocks beat bonds by 3,000 bps after earnings decelerate, but before they turn negative. Oil (+8,310 basis points) and gold (+6,950 bps) are the standouts; both commodities beat stocks) as earnings growth fades. Small caps barely outperform large, and the dollar, on average, is flat across all seven periods. Investment-grade corporate debt underperforms Treasuries by an average of 50 bps during these episodes. Table 2U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows The three occasions when EPS growth crested and then slowed to zero, but the economy avoided a recession, were in the mid-1980s, the mid-2000s and the early part of the current decade. These mid-cycle slowdowns were triggered by Fed rate hikes in the mid-1990s and mid-2000s; in the early 2010s, there were similar fears of a rate increase, coupled with a stronger dollar and a collapse in oil prices. The performance of risk assets during these mid-cycle earnings corrections was similar to the entire sample, although the magnitude of the asset class performances shifted. Oil (+12,560 bps) and gold (+8,400 bps) were standouts; equity and Treasury prices both rose, but equities beat Treasuries by nearly 10,000 bps, easily surpassing the 3,000 bps outperformance in all periods. Small caps underperformed large caps and the dollar climbed (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows Bottom Line: S&P 500 earnings growth will peak in 2018. Stocks will outperform bonds as profit growth slows, which matches BCA's stance for the next 12 months. Gold and oil have both outpaced equities as earnings abate; this supports BCA's bullish position and above-consensus view of oil for 2018. BCA's modestly bullish stance on the dollar in the next 12-18 months aligns with the historical achievements of the dollar as earnings moderate, but BCA's bullish view on small caps runs counter to history after EPS growth crests. The Great Balance Sheet Unwind Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart 9 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. In an October 2017 Special Report,4 the Bank Credit Analyst outlines how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. Chart 10 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following the September 19-20 FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasuries and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasuries and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart 9G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart 10Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.5 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario, the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. Empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasuries could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio; As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. However, it will be a whole different story if inflation lurches higher. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve?", September 21, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Return Of The Trump Trade," October 3, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," In the October Monthly Report. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017).