Policy

Dear Client, In addition to our regular Weekly Report, we sent you a Special Report on Wednesday prepared by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, assessing the election landscape in Europe this year. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights Global growth has accelerated, corporate earnings are rebounding, and leading indicators suggest that these positive trends will persist over the remainder of the year. This supports our cyclically bullish view on global equities. Looking further out, the impulse to growth from the easing in financial conditions that began in early 2016 will fade, setting the stage for a slowdown in 2018. If growth does falter next year, easier fiscal policy could provide an offsetting tailwind. However, there continues to be a large gap between what politicians are promising and what they can realistically deliver. What is different this time is that spare capacity is much lower than it was during previous mid-cycle slowdowns. Thus, while global bond yields could eventually dip, they remain in a secular uptrend. Feature The Elusive Correction We have been arguing since last fall that stronger global growth will help fuel a variety of reflationary trades.1 This part of our view has panned out nicely. What has surprised us is just how relentlessly the market has traded that view. With the exception of a few small wobbles, the S&P 500 has basically marched higher since the morning following the U.S. presidential election. Reflecting this development, the VIX fell to near record low levels earlier this week (Chart 1). The market's failure to take a breather has sabotaged our efforts to have our cake and eat it too - to maintain an overweight stance on global equities, while also profiting from the occasional correction. In contrast to our last three tactical hedges - which generated a cumulative return of 42% - our latest hedge is now down 9%. That's a lot of red ink. Out of pure risk management considerations, we will close this trade if the loss breaches 10%. Nevertheless, most indicators continue to warn of a looming correction. In particular, our U.S. equity strategists' new "Complacency-Anxiety" index is at an all-time high, suggesting that stocks have entered a technical overshoot phase (Chart 2).2 Chart 1VIX Is Near Record Lows Chart 2Complacency Reigns Cyclical Picture Still Solid In contrast to the short-term outlook, the 12-month cyclical picture for risk assets still looks reasonably good. Measures of current activity are rebounding as animal spirits begin to kick in (Chart 3). Falling unemployment and stronger wage growth are causing households to open their wallets. Against the backdrop of decreasing spare capacity, firms are reacting to this by increasing investment spending. Capital goods orders in the G3 economies have jumped higher in recent months, and capex intention surveys are pointing to further upside (Chart 4). Chart 3Current Activity Indicators Are Rebounding Chart 4An Upswing In Capex Corporate earnings have also accelerated on the back of faster economic growth. Consensus estimates call for global EPS to expand by 12% in local-currency terms this year, with the S&P 500 registering 10.4% growth, the STOXX Europe 600 gaining 14.3%, Japan's TOPIX adding 12.5%, and MSCI EM leading the pack at 16%. Outside the U.S., year-to-date earnings revisions have generally been positive, particularly in Japan and EM (in the U.S., 2017 EPS estimates have ticked down a modest 0.8%). BCA's in-house earnings models are consistent with this optimistic profit picture (Chart 5). What accounts for this fortuitous turn of events? A number of reasons help explain why growth accelerated in the second half of 2016: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7 percent off the level of U.S. GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 6). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus, helping to reflate the economy. Global growth benefited with a lag from the easing in financial conditions that began in earnest in early 2016. Government bond yields fell to record low levels in July. In addition, junk bond spreads collapsed, dropping from a peak of 7.9% in February to 4.3% by year-end (Chart 7). Higher equity prices, particularly in a number of beaten down emerging markets, also helped. Chart 5Broad-Based Acceleration In Corporate Earnings Chart 6Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 7Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen How Much Longer? Chart 8Improvement In Global ##br##Leading Economic Indicators The key question for investors is how long the good times will last. Right now, most leading indicators that we follow are signaling that the expansion will endure for the remainder of this year (Chart 8). As we look towards 2018, however, things get murkier. Conceptually, it is the change in financial conditions that matters for growth. While the ongoing rally in global equities and continued narrowing in credit spreads has contributed to some easing in financial conditions since the U.S. presidential election, this has been partly offset by higher government bond yields. A stronger dollar has also led to an incremental tightening in the U.S., as well as in some emerging markets with high levels of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. As such, it is likely that the positive "impulse" to economic growth from the easing in financial conditions that took place last year will begin to dissipate towards the end of this year. Fiscal Policy To The Rescue? If growth does slow next year, easier fiscal policy could provide an offsetting tailwind. The fiscal thrust for developed economies turned positive in 2016, the first year this happened since 2010 (Chart 9). However, it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue. There is little support among Republicans in Congress for a big infrastructure program. It once seemed possible that Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats could find common ground with President Trump on this issue, but that is looking less likely with each passing day, given the level of vitriol in Washington. Broad-based tax cuts are a certainty, but the risk is that they will be coupled with cuts to government spending. Empirically, the latter have a larger "multiplier effect" on GDP than the former. To complicate matters, the introduction of a border adjustment tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - could generate significant near-term dislocations for the global economy.3 Meanwhile, much of Trump's regulatory agenda is in limbo. A repeal of Dodd-Frank is off the table. Senate Republicans do not have the 60 votes needed to scrap it. The Volcker rule is here to stay. On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission has recommended a further loosening in fiscal policy this year, but member states themselves are actually targeting somewhat smaller fiscal deficits (Chart 10). As is often the case, budgetary overruns are likely, but with the Greek bailout program now back on the ropes, Germany and a number of other countries may begin to dial up the austerity rhetoric. Chart 9Will Fiscal Policy Continue To Ease? Chart 10European Commission Recommending Greater Fiscal Expansion Uncertainty over the slew of European elections slated for this year could also weigh on business sentiment. Marine Le Pen is likely to place first in the initial round of the French presidential election, but faces an uphill battle in the subsequent runoff. Nevertheless, betting markets are assigning a one-in-three chance of Le Pen becoming president - similar to the odds they were assigning to a Brexit "yes vote" and a Trump victory (Chart 11). Italy also remains a risk, as my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, discussed in this week's Special Report.4 Anti-euro sentiment is now stronger there than in any other major European economy (Chart 12). Chinese fiscal policy has already tightened significantly, with the year-over-year rate of change in government spending falling from a high of 25% in November 2015 to zero at present (Chart 13). So far the Chinese economy has held up well, but there is a risk that this may change. Despite Trump's backpedaling on the "One China" question, we expect the Trump administration to declare China a currency manipulator later this year. This will pave the way for higher tariffs on a variety of Chinese goods, which could lead to retaliatory measures by China. Chart 11Brexit, Then Trump... Is Le Pen Next? Chart 12Italy: Anti-Euro Sentiment Is A Risk Chart 13China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Fading Investment Conclusions Chart 14Diminished Slack In The Global Economy Global growth continues to be strong, and is likely to stay that way for the remainder of this year. However, there is a heightened risk that the global economy will falter in 2018. We remain cyclically overweight global equities and underweight government bonds, but are not dogmatic about this view. As the discussion above suggests, plenty of things could derail the reflation trade. If evidence begins to mount that a slowdown is coming earlier than we think, we will turn more bearish on stocks. Given that equities are technically overbought at present, we would not fault anyone for taking some money off the table. If growth does slow in 2018, does this mean that bond yields will fall back towards last year's lows? We don't think so. For one thing, a major deflationary commodity bust of the sort we endured in 2014-15 is not in the cards. In addition, there is less slack in the global economy now than there was last year, or for that matter, anytime since early 2008 (Chart 14). As we discussed in our Q1 Strategy Outlook, potential GDP growth is likely to remain structurally depressed across much of the world, owing to slower productivity and labor force growth.5 Lower potential growth means that excess capacity could continue to be absorbed even if growth slows somewhat from its current well-above trend pace. In the U.S., this absorption of excess capacity is nearly complete, with most labor market indicators suggesting that the economy is approaching full employment (Chart 15). In this vein, we would heavily discount the decline in average hourly earnings in January's employment report. Chart 16 shows that this was mainly driven by an anomalous drop in compensation in the financial sector. Broader measures continue to point to brewing wage pressures (Chart 17). We expect the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is now pricing in. If this happens, the dollar is likely to strengthen modestly over the remainder of the year. Chart 15U.S. Economy Approaching ##br##Full Employment Chart 16Financial Sector Dragging ##br##Down Hourly Earnings In The U.S. Chart 17U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing ##br##To Rising Wage Pressures Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bridging The Gap," dated February 6, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Chinese fiscal stimulus, both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment, has slowed significantly since late last year. This raises a red flag on the sustainability of the cyclical upturn. The Chinese economy should remain buoyant in the near term, despite fiscal retrenchment. Policy initiatives should be closely monitored. Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." Stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. There are early signs that deflation is re-emerging in Hong Kong. Feature The Chinese economy has maintained strong momentum since the beginning of the year. Some sectors are showing remarkable strength, an extraordinary development considering that January is historically a lackluster month for industrial activity due to seasonality factors. The recent strength is all the more noteworthy as policymakers have apparently rolled back fiscal support significantly since late last year, and have more recently also tightened on the monetary front.1 The divergence between strengthening growth momentum and waning policy support raises hopes that the economy has finally found its footing with self-sustainable dynamics, but at the same time raises the risk that growth may relapse anew without policy tailwinds - especially if struck by an exogenous shock. For now we maintain our benign view on China's cyclical growth outlook, but the risk is tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. Meanwhile, we remain positive on Chinese equities on a cyclical basis. This week we are also upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight." Strengthening Growth Versus Waning Fiscal Support Despite seasonal noise in the macro data in the first two months of the year, most macro numbers coming out of China of late have surprised significantly to the upside. Producer prices have continued to accelerate, heavy-machine sales have been booming, and even exports have rebounded sharply (Chart 1). The regained strength in the economy is partly attributable to early last year's low base, which has supercharged year-over-year growth rates. However, there is little doubt at this stage that China's growth recovery since early last year has developed into a mini boom. Beneath the robust growth numbers, there are some disconcerting undercurrents on the policy front (Chart 2). Fiscal spending growth has decelerated sharply since early 2016, and actually contracted towards year end. More importantly, capital spending on infrastructure construction, which can be viewed as an indicator for broader policy-driven spending in the economy, also slowed sharply in the last quarter. Fixed asset investment in transportation networks and utility concerns have also abruptly slowed. Investment in railway construction contracted by almost 30% in the final months of last year from a year earlier. All of this underscores a synchronized reduction in the public sector's involvement in the economy of late. Chart 1Growth Recovery... Chart 2... Meets Waning Fiscal Stimulus It is not immediately clear why the government has significantly scaled back fiscal support. Combined with the latest interest rate adjustments by the People's Bank of China, it is likely that the authorities have become content with the economy's performance to a degree that any direct policy pump-priming in their view is no longer necessary or justified. If China's ongoing cyclical growth improvement was due to the authorities' reflationary efforts, then the abrupt change in policy course certainly raises a red flag on how long the recovery may last. Can The Growth Recovery Continue Without Fiscal Support? Chart 3Monetary Conditions Matter More Than Fiscal We expect the Chinese economy to remain buoyant in the next two quarters, even without major acceleration in fiscal spending, for the following reasons: First, China's growth recovery since last year has been driven primarily by easing monetary conditions through a weakening exchange rate and falling real interest rates, rather than strong fiscal boost. Chart 3 shows that industrial sector growth deterioration worsened dramatically in 2014, which in hindsight was due to a combination of aggressive fiscal retrenchment and tighter monetary conditions index (MCI). Even though fiscal expenditures began to accelerate strongly starting in early 2015, the economy only began to improve a year later when the MCI started to ease. In fact, the industrial sector continued to improve throughout 2016 along with a rising MCI when fiscal expenditures decelerated. In other words, the industrial sector's performance is much more tightly correlated with the country's monetary conditions than the cyclical swings in fiscal spending. On one hand, the RMB exchange rate matters fundamentally for the manufacturing sector, which is heavily exposed to overseas markets. On the other hand, lower real interest rates, either through easing deflation or falling nominal rates, has been a primary driver of corporate profitability and overall business conditions, given the country's debt-centric financial intermediation system (Chart 4). As PPI is still rising rapidly and the trade-weighted RMB has once again rolled over, monetary conditions will likely continue to ease, which will further boost the industrial sector despite the fiscal cuts. Second, the slowdown in infrastructure spending will likely be compensated by accelerating investment in other sectors, manufacturing and mining in particular. Easing monetary conditions and ensuing growth improvement have significantly boosted corporate profitability, which should in turn boost manufacturing capital spending (Chart 5). It is likely that the multi-year slowdown in manufacturing sector capital spending has run its course and will accelerate going forward, albeit gradually.2 Investment in the mining sector is still contracting sharply. However, there has also been a dramatic improvement in profits among mining related industries, particularly coal and base metals (Chart 5, bottom panel). If historical correlations hold, the dramatic contraction in mining sector investment has likely already become very advanced, if not already bottomed. At minimum, it is highly unlikely that mining-related capex will continue to contract at an accelerating pace. Chart 4Interest Rates Versus Corporate Profits Chart 5Profits Versus Capital Spending A potential revival in manufacturing and mining capex will reverse a major growth headwind the Chinese economy has faced in recent years, which will continue to buoy growth despite slowing infrastructure construction. Manufacturing and mining account for over 33% of China's total fixed asset investment, higher than the 25% share of infrastructure alone (Chart 6). Indeed, there are signs that the corporate sector's intentions to expand capital investment may already be improving. In recent months medium- to long-term new loans to the corporate sector have accelerated strongly, which could be a sign that the corporate sector is beefing up on investment capital (Chart 7). Chart 6Manufacturing And Mining Capex ##br##Versus Infrastructure Construction Chart 7Longer Term Loans##br## Have Accelerated Sharply Finally, we maintain the view that overall inventory levels in the economy are unsustainably low, and improving growth and easing deflation should push producers to re-stock (Chart 8). This should also ease any near-term pressure on production, even if new orders are hit by slowing public sector demand. In other words, the economy has a built-in buffer for a period of weaker demand which could allow policymakers to re-orient demand-side policies in light of the new growth situation. Chart 8The Case For Inventory Restocking In short, we expect that waning fiscal support in the economy will not derail the cyclical recovery. Macro numbers may look toppy in the coming months, as the favorable base effect from last year's low levels wears out, but business activity should remain buoyant at least in the coming two quarters. Nonetheless, in a global environment that is still facing enormous challenges and mounting uncertainties, domestic policy tightening obviously raises downside risks. The annual People's Congress in early March should offer some important clues on the Chinese government's growth priorities and policy directions, and should be closely monitored. Tactically Upgrade H Shares In terms of Chinese stocks, our attempt to time a market correction in H shares ahead of the U.S. presidential elections in October did not bear fruit as expected.3 This week we are upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight". Even though H shares did correct, they found support at key technical levels and have broken out of late, underscoring a strong technical pattern (Chart 9). We are still concerned that some global markets, especially U.S. stocks, appear frothy and are vulnerable to some sort of shakeout, but the market appears to be in a melt-up phase in the near term. The risk of being left out in a rising market is higher than otherwise. More importantly, Chinese H shares are not nearly as frothy, if not outright cheap, which should further limit downside risks. The Trump administration has notably toned down the anti-China rhetoric, and the near term risk of escalating trade tension between the U.S. and China has abated.4 This should also soothe investors' concerns on Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." A shares will likely remain largely trendless. Meanwhile, stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Hong Kong: Is Deflation Coming Back? Hong Kong's GDP numbers to be released next week are likely to show the economy accelerated in the final quarter of the year, according to our model (Chart 10). However, the improvement was likely almost entirely driven by exports rather than domestic factors. In fact, retail sales contracted by 3% in December from a year ago. More importantly, with the exception of essential items such as food, alcohol and tobacco, the growth rates of all other major consumer goods are in deeply negative territory. Durable goods, an important barometer for consumer confidence and spending power, dropped by a whopping 20% in value, or 15.8% in real terms from a year ago, underscoring very weak domestic demand. Therefore, Hong Kong's growth outlook will remain heavily dependent on external demand. Chart 9H Shares: A Technical Breakout Chart 10Hong Kong's Growth Recovery Weak domestic demand also weighs heavy on inflation. Hong Kong's headline inflation is falling rapidly, primarily driven by declining rental prices, and odds are high that inflation may dip below zero in the coming months. This means that deflation may re-emerge for the first time since 2005. These developing deflationary pressures underscore the frothy housing market, and also suggest the Hong Kong dollar may have become expensive again. The currency board system prevents nominal exchange rate adjustments, and therefore any adjustment has to be through changes in domestic prices. There is little systemic risk in Hong Kong's financial system, but the re-emergence of deflationary pressures further weakens domestic demand, augments growth difficulties and bodes poorly for asset prices, especially real estate. We will follow up on these issues in the coming weeks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "On Chinese Tightening," dated February 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Duration: Growth, inflation & investor risk-seeking behavior remain bond-bearish in both the U.S. & the Euro Area. Market technicals, both in terms of oversold momentum and heavy short positioning, are the biggest headwind to higher yields in the near-term. USTs vs. Bunds: U.S. Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure from a hawkish Fed with the U.S. economy operating at full employment. The opposite is true in Europe, at least until Euro Area inflation is much higher. Stay overweight core Europe versus the U.S. in global hedged bond portfolios Feature Chart of the WeekCan The Bond Selloff Continue? Last week brought the first serious test of the bond bear phase that has been in place since last July. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dipped as low as 2.33% after a benign January U.S. Payrolls report that substantially reduced the odds of a March Fed rate hike. German Bund yields also dipped as renewed worries about the upcoming French election triggered a flight to quality out of French and Peripheral sovereign debt. Even the chartists got in on the act, talking of an imminent breakdown below the "head & shoulders neckline" on the 10-year U.S. Treasury that would herald a 25bp decline in yields. Adding to the growing sense of nervousness among investors is a fear that the "Trumpflation" trade could soon run out of gas, with a correction of both elevated equity prices and bond yields likely in the absence of concrete economic news from the White House. Yet all it took was for Trump to simply mention that a "phenomenal" announcement on his tax plan was coming in the next few weeks to restart the Trump trades, pushing equity indices to new highs and driving up bond yields. Given all the conflicting forces at play in developed bond markets - accelerating growth, rising inflation, fiscal and political uncertainties, bearish bond investor positioning - we believe it is important to stay grounded by focusing only on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise. This week, we are introducing a new "Duration Checklist" for both U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds, highlighting the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. From this checklist, we can confirm that the bond-bearish backdrop remains intact, with more indicators pointing to higher yields in the U.S. relative to core Europe. Describing The Elements Of Our Checklist The individual components of bond yields that we typically monitor - term premia, inflation expectations and shifts in the market-implied path of policy rates - have all contributed to the rise in U.S. and European bond yields since last July (Chart of the Week). Some of the factors that have driven yields higher are global in nature, like faster economic growth and rising energy prices, while others are more country-specific, like rising wage inflation in the U.S. To account for those different factors, we need to include a variety of indicators in our new GFIS Duration Checklist. The goal of list is to answer the specific question: "what should we watch to maintain a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. and core Europe?" The items in the Checklist are shown in Table 1, broken down into the following groupings: Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds Accelerating Global Growth: Here, we are looking at indicators that are pointing to a quickening pace of global economic growth that would put upward pressure on all developed market bond yields. Specifically, we are looking to see if: a) the annual growth in the global leading economic indicator (LEI) is accelerating; b) our diffusion index for the global LEI is above 50 (suggesting a majority of countries with an expanding LEI) and rising; c) the global ZEW economic sentiment index is increasing; d) the global data surprise index is moving higher; and e) our measure of the global credit impulse (the 6-month change in credit growth among the major economies, one of BCA's favorite leading economic signals) is expanding. These global indicators are all shown in Chart 2. The global LEI growth rate, the global ZEW index and global data surprises are all moving higher, consistent with upward pressure on bond yields, and thus warrant a "check" in our GFIS Duration Checklist. The LEI diffusion index is well above 50, but has hooked down slightly in the past few months, as has the global credit impulse. These moves are relatively modest, and it is not yet certain whether they represent a change in trend in these series. For now, we are giving these indicators a "check", but with a question mark attached. If we see additional declines in the diffusion index and the global credit impulse in the next few months, we would interpret that as a sign that the cyclical global upturn is in danger of losing momentum, thus reducing the upward pressure on bond yields. Accelerating Domestic Growth: These are economic data that are specific to each country that would be consistent with higher yields; a) manufacturing purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) that are above 50 and rising; b) expanding consumer confidence; c) rising business confidence; d) faster growth in corporate profits. The relevant data for the U.S. are shown in Chart 3, which shows that all elements are increasing in a fashion that is bearish for U.S. Treasuries. The popular perception is that the recent surge in business confidence (both for corporate CEOs and small business owners) is simply a "Trump effect" from the new president's pro-business economic platform. However, the acceleration in corporate profit growth, which our own models are suggesting will continue in the coming quarters, is a sign that there is a more fundamental reason for firms to feel more optimistic. Chart 2Global Growth Still Pointing To Higher Yields Chart 3U.S. Domestic Upturn Is Solid We give all the U.S. domestic growth indicators a "check" pointing to a need to stay below-benchmark U.S. duration. The specific Euro Area growth data is shown in Chart 4. Similar to the U.S., all the indicators are moving higher in a bond-bearish direction, warranting a "check" on the Euro Area Duration Checklist. The political tensions stemming from the busy election calendar in Europe this year represent a potential negative shock to confidence. As we discussed in our Special Report published last week, however, we do not foresee a populist election shock in France akin to Brexit or Trump that would derail the Euro Area economic expansion.1 Rising Domestic Inflation Pressures: These are data that are specific to each country that would be consistent with faster inflation and higher yields: a) the annual growth in the oil price, in local currency terms, is accelerating; b) wage inflation is rising; c) the unemployment gap (the difference between the unemployment rate and the full employment NAIRU rate) is closed or nearly closed; The U.S. inflation data is shown in Chart 5, with all the indicators warranting a bond-bearish "check" in our U.S. Duration Checklist. The rising trend in oil prices continues to put upward pressure on headline U.S. inflation, even with the strong U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, the unemployment gap is now closed and U.S. wage inflation is grinding higher. This should be consistent with additional modest gains in core inflation that will put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of U.S. Treasury yields (bottom panel). Chart 4Euro Area Domestic Upturn Is Solid Chart 5U.S. Inflation Trends Still Bearish For USTs It is a different story in the Euro Area, as can be seen in Chart 6. While the rapid acceleration in the Euro-denominated price of oil is starting to feed through into faster headline inflation, there still exists a positive unemployment gap that is helping keep wage growth, and core inflation, muted. A continuation of the recent economic upturn will likely put more downward pressure on Euro Area unemployment, but, for now, only the oil price acceleration justifies a "check" in the Euro Area Duration Checklist. Chart 6Euro Area Inflation Is A Mixed Bag Central Bank Policy Stance: Here, we are not including any charts, but are only stating whether the central bank has a bias to tighten monetary policy. That is certainly the case in the U.S., where the Fed has already delivered a 25bp hike in December and continues to signal that up to three more hikes will occur in 2017 if the FOMC growth forecasts are realized. So we put a "check" in this box on the U.S. side of the checklist. The European Central Bank (ECB) continues to maintain an unusually accommodative monetary stance, using a combination of asset purchases, negative policy rates and dovish forward guidance. We continue to see a potential shift away from this super-easy policy bias in the latter half of the year - in response to the upturn in economic growth and acceleration of Euro Area inflation towards the ECB's 2% target - as the biggest risk for both Euro Area bonds, in particular, and global bonds, in general. For now, however, the ECB is signaling no imminent shift to a more hawkish stance, so we are placing an "x" in the central bank portion of the Euro Area checklist. Risk-Seeking Behavior In Financial Markets: Here, we are checking to see if pro-growth, pro-risk asset classes are outperforming and whether market volatilities are rising. Risk asset outperformance and stable vol suggests that investors are less interested in risk-free government bonds: a) the domestic equity index is rising but is not yet 10% above the 200-day moving average (a level that has coincided with post-crisis equity market and bond yield peaks); b) domestic corporate bond spreads are either flat or falling rapidly; c) domestic equity market volatility is low and falling rapidly. The U.S. indicators are shown in Chart 7, while the Euro Area data is shown in Chart 8. The story is the same in both regions, with equity markets in a bullish trend but not yet at a fully-stretched extreme, credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) tight, and equity market volatility at multi-year lows. We view these indicators as signs that investors are less interested in owning U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds than owning equities and corporate debt. This will help bond yields drift higher on the margin as economic growth and inflation rise in the coming months. Thus, we place a "check" on all three elements in both the U.S. and Euro Area Duration Checklists. Chart 7Risk-Seeking Behavior In The U.S. Chart 8Risk-Seeking Behavior In Europe Contrarians may look at those same charts and say that this is more of a sign that investors are too optimistic and are now exposed to any negative growth shock, potentially representing a trigger for a selloff of risk assets and a move into government debt. We prefer to view the bullish performance of growth-sensitive assets as a sign of underlying investor risk appetite. Domestic Bond Market Technicals: Here, we are simply looking at measures of price momentum and market positioning in government bonds, to assess if there is room for additional yield increases as investors reduce exposure: a) the domestic 10-year bond yield is not stretched to the upside versus the 200-day moving average; b) the domestic Treasury index total return momentum (26-week rate of change) is not stretched to the downside; c) bond investor positioning is not already short. The 10-year U.S. Treasury technicals are shown in Chart 9, while the German Bund technicals are shown in Chart 10. The story is quite simple here - the rapid run-up in global bond yields late last year has led to stretched, oversold conditions on both sides of the Atlantic. Sentiment remains bearish in U.S. Treasuries, with massive net shorts in bond futures, suggesting that an overhang of positions remains a major headwind to higher yields. While we do not have positioning data for Euro Area bond investors, the momentum charts for German Bunds look very similar to the U.S. Treasury charts. Clearly, we must place an "x" in all these boxes on both Duration Checklists. Chart 9Stretched Technicals In U.S. Treasuries... Chart 10...And In German Bunds So What Are The Checklists Telling Us? Adding it all up, and the vast majority of the indicators in both checklists are pointing to continued upward pressure on bond yields, justifying a below-benchmark duration stance. The lack of core inflation pressure in the Euro Area, however, suggests that there is less upward pressure on German Bund yields relative to U.S. Treasuries, thus we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Bunds versus Treasuries in global hedged bond portfolios. Oversold conditions suggest that yields will have a tough time rising quickly from here while the market continues to consolidate the late 2016 bond selloff. However, a major bond market reversal is unlikely given the solid upturn in global growth. Bottom Line: Growth, inflation & investor risk-seeking behavior remain bond-bearish in both the U.S. & the Euro Area. Market technicals, both in terms of oversold momentum and heavy short positioning, are the biggest headwind to higher yields in the near-term. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance in the near term, favoring German Bunds over U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our View On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Rate Volatility: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Treasury Yields: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. MBS: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Feature Low interest rate volatility has been a constant feature of the investing landscape during the past few years. In fact, you need to go back to the 1970s to find another period when interest rate volatility was consistently at or below its current level (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the implied volatility priced into Treasury options is also as low as it has been during the past 30 years, with the exception of the period just prior to the financial crisis in 2007 (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Chart 2Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together This begs the question of whether the current low-vol environment can be sustained, or whether overly complacent investors are in for a shock. At the very least, we believe that rate volatility has already passed its cyclical trough and will start to move up this year. Investors should prepare themselves for higher volatility. In this week's report we examine the key macro drivers of interest rate volatility and discuss the implications of rising vol for both Treasury yields, and crucially, mortgage-backed securities. Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility Chart 3Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility In a Special Report published in 2014,1 we posited that the long-term trends in volatility across all asset classes are largely driven by common macroeconomic factors. Specifically, investor uncertainty regarding the outlook for economic growth and monetary policy. A 2004 paper by Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi2 provides some theoretical justification for this view, as the authors observed that investors tend to overreact to new information when macro uncertainty is high, and underreact when uncertainty is low. To test the linkage between interest rate volatility and macro uncertainty we consider three measures of uncertainty. The first two measures, shown alongside the MOVE index of implied Treasury volatility in Chart 3, are measures of GDP growth and T-bill rate forecast dispersion. We measure dispersion - the disagreement among forecasters - by looking at individual forecasts of GDP growth and T-bill rates and calculating the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. The series shown in Chart 3 are equal-weighted averages of the forecast dispersion calculated for five different time horizons, ranging from the current quarter to four quarters ahead. As can be seen in the top two panels of Chart 3, implied interest rate volatility is higher when the disagreement among forecasters is greater, consistent with our thesis. The third measure of uncertainty we consider is the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index tracks uncertainty about the macro environment by counting the number of mentions of certain key words in major global newspapers. Elevated readings from this index have also coincided with high rate volatility in the past (Chart 3, bottom panel). GDP Growth Forecast Dispersion Chart 4Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Disagreement among GDP growth forecasts reached an all-time low in the fourth quarter of 2016, but has since recovered to slightly more typical levels. Historically, we have found that C&I lending standards and corporate sector balance sheet health correlate most closely with GDP growth forecast dispersion (Chart 4) and both measures suggest that forecast dispersion is biased upward. T-Bill Rate Forecast Dispersion T-bill rate forecast dispersion was abnormally low between 2011 and 2014 for two reasons. The first reason is quite simply the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. A short rate bounded at zero necessarily trimmed the distribution of possible T-bill rate forecasts, since forecasters logically assumed that further interest rate cuts were not possible. This impact will gradually dissipate the further the fed funds rate moves off zero. Chart 5Fed Says March Meeting Is Live The second reason for extremely low T-bill rate forecast dispersion was the Fed's forward guidance. During this timeframe the Fed was actively trying to convince the public that interest rates would remain low. The most obvious example being the "Evans Rule", where the Fed promised not to lift interest rates at least until the unemployment rate had fallen below a specific threshold. This activist forward guidance limited the range of conceivable T-bill rate forecasts and crushed interest rate volatility. Nowadays, the Fed is engaged in a different sort of forward guidance, trying to convince markets that every FOMC meeting is live and that rate hikes could occur at any moment. Essentially, the Fed is trying to inject volatility into the rates market. Just a few weeks ago, when asked about the low probability markets are assigning to a March rate hike (Chart 5), San Francisco Fed President John Williams replied flatly: "I don't agree. All our meetings are live." Global Economic Policy Uncertainty We have written a lot about the policy uncertainty index in recent reports,4 focusing specifically on how it has diverged from its historical relationships with many asset prices. At the very least, we expect that sustained elevated policy uncertainty will place upward pressure on asset price volatility at the margin. Bottom Line: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Rate Volatility & Treasury Yields Long-dated nominal Treasury yields can be decomposed in a few different ways. In recent reports we have focused on the decomposition of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield into its real and inflation components. By identifying different macro drivers for each component we concluded that nominal Treasury yields will increase this year, driven by a rising inflation component and relatively stable real yields.5 Alternatively, we can think of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield as consisting of an expectations component equal to the market's expected path of short rates over the next ten years, and a term premium that reflects all of the other market imbalances and uncertainties associated with taking duration risk. This second approach is complicated by the fact that it requires a model of ex-ante interest rate expectations and every commonly used model is fraught with its own unique difficulties.6 Setting that aside, if we use the Kim & Wright (2005)7 estimate of the 10-year term premium we observe an expectations component that generally tracks the fed funds rate and a term premium component that is correlated with implied Treasury volatility (Chart 6), although the latter correlation is less than perfect. This decomposition also suggests that nominal Treasury yields should rise. The Fed is much more likely to hike rates than cut them and we have concluded that rate volatility is likely to trend higher from current depressed levels. However, the relationship between rate volatility and the term premium is complicated. The main reason for the complicated relationship between interest rate volatility and the term premium is the fact that elevated interest rate volatility also tends to be correlated with high equity volatility (Chart 7). So while higher rate volatility puts upward pressure on the term premium, the associated increase in equity volatility tends to raise investor risk aversion and increase the perceived value of bonds as a hedge against equity positions. This mitigates some (or often all) of the impact of rising rate volatility on the term premium. Chart 6Which Way For The ##br##Term Premium? Chart 7MOVE & VIX Have Opposing##br## Impacts On Bond Yields Bottom Line: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. Rate Volatility & MBS The relationship between rate volatility and MBS is much more straightforward than for Treasury yields. We observe a tight correlation between nominal MBS spreads and the MOVE implied volatility index (Chart 8). Chart 8 suggests that, even in the near-term, MBS spreads are too low for current levels of rate vol. The relationship between MBS spreads and rate volatility is easily explained. The defining characteristic of a negatively convex asset, such as MBS, is that its duration is positively correlated with the level of interest rates (Chart 9). This correlation leads to increased losses when yields rise and lower gains when yields fall. It's not surprising that negatively convex assets perform best in low volatility environments. Chart 8MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol Chart 9MBS Duration Moves With Yields We maintain an underweight allocation to MBS given that spreads are already low and that the volatility environment is poised to become less favorable. Further, if the Fed continues along its planned normalization path it is likely to cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio at some point in 2018. There are two reasons why this poses a risk for MBS. The first reason is that the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio is likely to place upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility is likely to increase. The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 10). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 11), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 10Annual MBS Excess Returns ##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 Chart 11Net Issuance Will Turn##br## Positive In 2018 During the past three years the Fed has been buying between $20bn and $40bn MBS per month, just to keep its balance sheet stable. Net new MBS issuance will not be strong enough to overcome this hurdle in 2017, but net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) will swing quickly into positive territory in 2018 if the Fed decides to let its MBS portfolio run down. Bottom Line: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Volatility, Uncertainty And Government Bond Yields", dated May 13, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 "Inflation and earnings uncertainty and volatility forecasts", Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi, Manuscript, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago (2004). 3 Please see www.policyuncertainty.com for further details. 4 Please see Theme # 4 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Volatility - The Unwelcome Guest That Will Not Leave", dated June 16, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Don H. Kim and Jonathan H. Wright, "An Arbitrage-Free Term Structure Model and the Recent Behavior of Long-Term Yields and Distant-Horizon Forward Rates", FEDS 2005-33. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2005/index.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The divergence in political uncertainty measures and the VIX index suggests that equity prices are vulnerable to Washington disappointments. Longer term, a self-reinforcing, low-inflation recovery is in place, which sets a fundamentally positive cyclical backdrop for equities. Monetary policy is still in a sweet spot for risk assets. Fed policy decisions throughout the current cycle have been in line with the Taylor Rule, once the model is adjusted for regional growth disparities. The most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey runs counter to most other data on the consumer. Improved consumer confidence should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. Feature Equity market performance over the past few weeks has been impressive. Still, there are starting to be signs that investors are becoming nervous. Safe-haven assets have been undergoing a stealth recovery since mid-December: gold, the Japanese yen, and the Swiss franc have all appreciated (Chart 1). In relation to these trends, the equity market is the so-called "odd man out": even though several safe-haven assets bottomed out mid-December, the stock market continued to make new highs. A second worrying divergence is the behavior of two popular risk indexes: the VIX and the Global Policy Uncertainty Index. The former - a measure of the cost of equity insurance - remains very low, while political uncertainty is making record highs. In fact, Chart 2 shows that the gap between these two risk measures is at a historic extreme. This reinforces our view that the equity market is vulnerable to negative surprises. Chart 1A Message From Safe Havens? Chart 2Different Signals? One main risk is that investors will become disappointed with the timing and magnitude of market-friendly policies from Washington. Meanwhile, the possibility of less friendly policies being passed is rising. Our Geopolitical team believes that the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) proposal, though the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show.1 We would expect market volatility to rise as the BAT debate intensifies. Longer term, the economy is entering a self-reinforcing phase. And since it is premature to expect inflation to flare up to a point that would require aggressive monetary tightening,2 we expect that the cyclical bull market will be prolonged. Policy Sweet Spot We have shown on several occasions3 that equities perform well in the early phases of a rising interest environment, i.e. for as long as rates remain in accommodative territory. We have identified four phases of the fed funds rate cycle, which are defined by the policy rate relative to its equilibrium level (accommodative or restrictive) and the direction of its last move: Phase I = Policy is accommodative, but the Fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed funds is still rising. Phase III = Policy is tight, but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easing and the Fed is cutting rates. As one would expect, the best equity market returns occur when the Fed funds rate is accommodative (below the equilibrium rate) and the Fed is still cutting and/or on extensive hold, i.e. Phase IV. The second best phase for equity performance is the current one: when policy is still accommodative, but rates are rising (Chart 3). Granted, the magnitude of returns in this phase depend markedly on earnings performance, but the general message is that risk assets will continue to eke out positive gains, so long as the Fed finds reason to stay accommodative. Chart 3Policy Sweet Spot Can Last A Long Time To this end, this week we examine the Taylor rule - which prescribes a value for the federal funds rate based on the values of inflation and economic slack - and its usefulness in the current economic (and political) environment. The Robotization Of The Fed In mid-January, FOMC Chair Janet Yellen gave a speech4 that outlined the merits of using statistical rules to guide monetary policy. Her speech served as a rebuttal to the FORM Act (Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act). The FORM Act - whose main feature is to have Fed officials determine a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions - is only one of several measures that have been proposed over the years to revamp the Fed to put it under greater Congressional scrutiny and limit its discretionary powers. The Senate has never voted on the FORM Act, but Yellen's speech on rule-based approaches to monetary policy suggest that this type of legislation should be on investors' radars. In the past, plenty of simple policy rules have been suggested to guide central banks' decisions.5 But in her speech, Yellen spoke about the relevance of the Taylor Rule. The Taylor rule calls for systematic adjustments in the federal funds rate relative to its expected longer-run neutral level in response to movements in inflation and the output gap, defined as the percentage difference between actual output and the economy's productive potential. The traditional Taylor Rule shows that the Fed is currently behind the curve and should be much more hawkish (Chart 4, top panel). Chair Yellen's preferred variant is to use a "balanced approach," which is twice as responsive to the movements in resources utilization (Chart 4, bottom panel). Simply put, it doubles the coefficient of the output gap, putting more emphasis on maintaining sustainable growth. But even with this methodological tweak, Yellen warned of the danger of using simple rules to conduct policy and quoted the uncertain footing of the global economic growth pattern. She also highlighted that the uncertainty related to upcoming fiscal policy: "simple rules ignore such important factors as fiscal policy, trends affecting global growth, structural developments influencing supply of credit, and overall financial conditions." For this reason, we created an Augmented Taylor rule that improves on the Traditional as well as Yellen's preferred modified Taylor rule. Our version of the Taylor rule has a better track record in explaining the Fed's policy decisions historically. Chart 4Taylor Vs. The Fed Chart 5Different Rates For Different States Augmenting The Taylor Rule One of the difficulties in conducting monetary policy in the U.S. is that growth is unevenly distributed. For example, according to the BEA, state level real GDP growth varied between -0.1% (In Alaska and New Mexico) and 7.1% (in South Dakota). Regulating interest rates over such an eclectic base has the potential to create distortions. Therefore, determining a mathematical formula for monetary policy should take into account these asymmetric patterns. By studying state-specific variables, we augment the Taylor Rule and come up with a more accurate reading of the Fed's behavior. The Augmented Taylor Rule is calculated using an average of 51 state-specific Taylor rules,6 using state GDP deflator and state unemployment rate as inputs. Please note that the following work does not make us advocates for the Fed following a mathematical formula. However, our model does better formulize the Fed's historical actions. To construct our Augmented Taylor rule we do the following: Step 1 - State Taylor Rules: NAIRU and the Fed's targets for interest rates and for inflation were used at the national level. As such, we used state-specific variables for the rest of the variables. Specifically, we used each states' GDP deflator and unemployment rate as inputs for inflation and resource utilization, respectively. With these variables, we calculated each states' Taylor Rule using Janet Yellen's preferred formula, the balanced approached. We then aggregated the data by calculating a simple average of the 51 Taylor Rules. As a reference, the top panel of Chart 5 shows that the averaged state Taylor Rules and Yellen's balanced approach are similar despite slightly different methods. Step 2 - Quantifying Asymmetry: As the middle panel of Chart 5 shows, there are large divergences between states' Taylor Rule-prescribed interest rates throughout time. Therefore, we calculated the standard deviations of the Taylor Rules across the 51 states Taylor Rules to come up with a value of asymmetry measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). Step 3 - Augmenting The Taylor Rule: We then deducted the asymmetry measure from the average Taylor Rule (Chart 6). The rationale for doing so is that it is much more difficult for the Fed to raise rates when outputs gaps vary greatly across states. Step 4 - Validating The Rule: Chart 7 shows the relationship between the national balanced Taylor rule (i.e. Yellen's preferred approach) and the Fed funds rate, and the augmented Taylor rule and the Fed funds rate. The main difference between our adjusted Taylor rule and Yellen's balanced approach is that we give equal weight to each state Taylor rule and then subtract the variance across states. Recall that both the Traditional and Balanced Taylor rules use national aggregate data, and do not account for state variances. The augmented Taylor Rule improves the R2 over the national rule, therefore providing more explanatory power of the Fed's decisions. Chart 6The Fed Is Constrained By Asymmetry Chart 7Validating The Augmented Taylor Rule The bottom line is that the Augmented Taylor Rule allows us to understand and quantify the economic asymmetry within the U.S. Further, it appears as though the Fed has been following this rule even if policymakers are not aware of it! Given the current message from our rule, investors should expect the Fed to remain gradual in raising rates. We do not foresee the Fed "catching up" with the Traditional Taylor (which currently calls for a policy rate of over 4%). The above Taylor Rule analysis corroborates our view that policy will stay in a sweet spot for equities. The bond market currently is priced for two rates in the next twelve months. If that is realized, interest rates would still be below the equilibrium rate, underscoring that monetary policy will be a benign factor for risk assets. Economy Update: Too Early To Worry About Rising Rates The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, completed after most of the run up in interest rates, showed that banks' lending standards for loans to businesses remained largely unchanged, though lending standards for consumer loans stiffened, especially for auto loans and credit cards (Chart 8). There was also reportedly less demand for consumer credit. These results run counter to most other data on the U.S. consumer. As we highlighted in previous reports, consumer confidence has soared to its highest level in the cycle and the labor market is approaching full employment. These trends should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. This was not borne out in the Fed's Q1 lending survey, especially as it relates to auto and credit card loans: banks expect the asset quality of auto and credit card loans to further deteriorate this year. These survey results are difficult to ignore as they tend to correlate reasonably well with consumer spending patterns. We maintain an optimistic view on household spending for 2017, driven by the strong labor market, though the next survey (to be released in early May) will tell whether the Q1 results were an aberration or the start of a weaker trend. Importantly, recent work from our Bank Credit Analyst service7 concluded that household interest payment burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100bps for today's levels. According to their analysis, it would require a much more significant shock, i.e. 300bps or greater, to move interest payments as a share of GDP back toward historical averages. Projections are shown in Chart 9. Chart 8Banks Are Still Cautious On Lending Chart 9Rising Rates Are Not Problematic More broadly for the major economies, global debt has soared by over 40 percentage points since 2007. However, The BCA report uncovers that a doomsday scenario for global growth due to a rising interest rate environment (led chiefly by the Fed) is unlikely to unfold. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low. These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China. Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years. The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5 years and more in some countries. Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100bps in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). The bottom line is that a rising interest rate backdrop will only become problematic much later in the economic cycle. In the meantime, the strength of the consumer spending upcycle depends on (stronger) income trends and banks' willingness to spend. We are optimistic about the former and will continue to monitor the latter. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat," dated January 9, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Lingering In The Policy Sweet Spot," dated September 26, 2016 and "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see a transcript of Janet Yellen's January 19, 2017 speech, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170119a.htm 5 Taylor, J. and Williams, J. "Simple and Robust Rules for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco, Working Paper Series, Dated April 2010. 6 We used the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 7 Please see, The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?," dated February 2017, available at bca,bcaresearch.com. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommendation for cash has been upgraded to benchmark at the expense of bonds. The weightings for the major asset classes are: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), neutral Treasury allocation at 30% (benchmark 30%) and cash at 10% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with slight advances for both the breadth & trend and momentum indicators. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions, though still favorable for equities, is giving a less bullish signal. The earnings-driven component continues to give a cautious signal. Even as real operating earnings continue to gradually improve, they still remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations which have moved higher yet again. Earnings momentum is also still sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index. The model's recommendation for bonds is now at benchmark which fits with our neutral qualitative stance for Treasuries in balanced portfolios since November 7, 2016. Although the valuation and cyclical components of the bond model are still constructive, the deterioration of the technical component triggered a "sell" signal changing the allocation from overweight tot benchmark. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report “Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model”, February 6, 2009.

Highlights The USD bull case is now well known by the market, but this is not strong enough a hurdle to end the dollar's run. The behavior of positioning, the U.S. basic balance of payments, interest rate expectations, and relative central bank balance sheets suggest we are entering the overshoot phase of the rally. Volatility will increase and differentiation on the dollar's pairs is becoming more important. Reflation plays are especially in danger, and the euro could be handicapped by political risk. The yen remains the preferred mean to play the ongoing dollar correction. Feature The dollar bull market has been echoing the path traced in the 1990s (Chart I-1). The key question for investors now is whether the dollar can continue to follow this road map or is the bull market over. The dollar bullish arguments are now well known by market participants, increasing the risk that purchases of the dollar might exhaust themselves. We review the indicators that worry us most and conclude that the dollar bull market could run further. However, as the dollar is now moving into overshoot territory, we expect that the volatility of the rally will only grow. Also, divergences in the dollar on its pairs are becoming more likely. We remain short USD/JPY, and explore the risks to the euro's near-term outlook. Signs Of An Overshoot? Sentiment The first factor that worries us about the future of the USD bull market is the near universality of the positive disposition of investors toward the dollar. However, two observations are in order. First, both sentiment and net speculative positions are not nearly as stretched as they were at the top of the Clinton USD bull market (Chart I-2). Second, it took six years of elevated bullishness and long positioning to prompt the end of the bull market in 2002. Either way, the dollar can continue to climb despite this handicap. Chart I-1Will History Repeat Itself? Chart I-2In The 1990s, The Consensus Was Right This reflects the fact that currency markets can often fall victim to something called the "band-wagon" effect, where a strong trend attracts more funds and perpetuates itself. Chart I-3America Is Great Again, ##br##At Least According To Investors We think this is caused by two factors. Valuation signals in the currency market have a poor track record at making money on a less than 2-year basis. This means that such signals need to be extremely strong before investors act on them. The dollar being 10% overvalued does not fit this description, instead a 20% to 25% overvaluation would hit that mark. Also, a strong upward move in a currency attracts funds to that economy. This creates liquidity in that nation's banking sector, alleviating some of the economic pain created by a rising currency or the tighter monetary policy that often caused the currency in question to rise in the first place. Today, the U.S. economy fits this bill, as private investors are rapaciously grabbing U.S. assets (Chart I-3). The Basic Balance Of Payments We have been struggling with how to interpret a strong basic balance of payment position. On the one hand, an elevated basic balance suggests that there is buying out there supporting a nation's currency. On the other hand, a strong basic balance position, especially if not caused by a current account surplus, suggests that market participants have already implemented their purchases of that nation's currency's and assets. These investors thus need further positive shocks to buy even more of that currency in order to lift its exchange rate ever higher. Today, the basic balance of payments in the U.S. is at a record high of 3.8% of GDP, begging the question of how it can climb higher from here (Chart I-4). However, as the same chart reveals, each of the previous dollar bull markets ended a few years after the U.S. basic balance of payments had peaked. Thus, we currently continue to expect the dollar to strengthen even if the U.S. basic balance position were to deteriorate. Additionally, the euro area basic balance is very depressed today at -3.4% of GDP, despite a current account surplus of 3% of GDP. However, in 1999, the region's basic balance bottomed at -5.6% of GDP, and it took until 2002 before the euro could durably rally, at which point the euro area basic balance had move back near 0% of GDP. Therefore, we would need to see a marked improvement in the euro area's basic balance in order to buy and hold the euro on a 12-to-18 months basis. Interest Rate Expectations Investors have rarely been as convinced as they are today that the Fed will increase interest rates over the coming months. This implies that the room for disappointment is large. However, as Chart I-5 illustrates, this is still not a reason to begin betting on an end to the dollar cyclical bull market. An overshoot in the dollar is marked by a fall in expectations of interest rate hikes as the strong dollar hurts the economy, preventing the Fed from hiking as much as anticipated. Moreover, except in 1994, a decreasing prevalence of rising rate expectations has lead dollar bear markets by more than a year. This suggests that there is room for the dollar to strengthen even if markets downgrade their U.S. rates expectations. Chart I-4The Basic Balance##br## Is A Small Hurdle Chart I-5In An Over Shoot, The Dollar Can Rally ##br##Even If Investors Doubt The Fed Even when looked comparatively, the broad consensus of investors regarding the continuation of monetary divergences between the Fed and the ECB is not yet a hurdle for the dollar to continue beating the euro on a 12-18 months basis. Not only is EUR/USD currently trading in line with relative expectations, previous euro rallies have been preceded by a big upgrade of the expected path of policy in Europe relative to the U.S. We currently expect the ECB to go out of its way to telegraph that even if asset purchases get curtailed in the second half of 2017, this will in no way foretell an imminent increase in European rates. Meanwhile, the Fed is in a firm position to increase rates as U.S. slack has dissipated (Chart I-6). Moreover, the proposed fiscal stimulus of the Trump administration should create inflationary pressures in this environment, solidifying the Fed's resolve to hike rates further. Chart I-6The Fed Pass Toward Higher Rates In Being Cleared Balance Sheet Positions One indicator concerns us more than the others at this point in time. As we wrote two weeks ago, one factor that has propelled the dollar higher has been its relative scarcity. The limited supply of dollar in the offshore markets - courtesy of the meltdown in the prime money-market funds industry and the heavier regulatory burden on banks - has caused cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen, pushing the greenback higher.1 Chart I-7Balance Sheet Dynamics And##br## The Scarcity Of Dollars Currently, the cross-currency basis swap spreads are hovering near record lows. However, as Chart I-7 illustrates, the surplus of euros created by the ECB's balance-sheet expansion as the Fed stopped its own purchases had a role to play in this phenomenon. While we expect the ECB to stand pat on the interest rate front for the foreseeable future, a further tapering of asset purchases in the second half of 2017 and beyond is very likely. This could limit the widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads that has been so helpful to the dollar, especially if the Fed elects not to curtail the size of its balance sheet. Net Net Many indicators suggest that the potential for dollar buying may be on the verge of exhausting itself. However, when looked closer, while these factors are a cause for concern, they still do not preclude an overshoot in the dollar. In fact, if anything, they suggest that the dollar is only now beginning its overshoot phase, a leg of the bull market that historically begins to inflict deeper pain on the U.S. economy as the dollar gets ever more dissociated from its fundamentals. So What? While the above indicators do not yet point to an end of the bull market, they in no way suggest that the dollar cannot suffer episodic corrections. We believe we are in the midst of such an event. Can the correction last further? Yes. To begin with, while the heavy net long positioning in the dollar does not represent much of a cyclical hurdle to beat, it does still constitute an important tactical risk. Our models corroborate this view. DXY is only currently fairly valued based on our intermediate-term timing model. Historically, tactical corrections fully play out once this model is in cheap territory (Chart I-8). Moreover, our capitulation index paints a similar story. This indicator has corrected some of its overbought excesses but remains above levels suggestive of an oversold environment. To the contrary, the fact that this index is still below its 13-week moving average points to additional selling pressures on the USD (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Dollar Tactical Correction Is Not Over Chart I-9Confirming The Dollar Tactical Downside However, other factors suggest that the dollar could strengthen on certain pairs. The outlook seems especially grim for the reflation plays like the commodity currencies. Our reflation gauge, based on the prices of lumber, industrial metals, and platinum, has moved upward exactly as the U.S. dollar has rallied, a short-lived phenomenon that happened in 2001, 2002, and 2009. In all these cases, the Fed was easing policy and U.S. rates were softening relative to the rest of the world (Chart I-10). We doubt this phenomenon can continue much longer, especially as the Fed is currently tightening policy and U.S. rates are rising relative to the rest of the world. Moreover, Chinese fiscal stimulus was crucial in supporting this divergence in both 2009 and 2016. However, Chinese government spending went from growing at a 25% annual rate in November 2015, to a near 0% rate now. Moreover, the PBoC has already increased rates twice on its medium-term facilities and has also stopped injecting liquidity in the interbank market despite recent upward pressures on the SHIBOR. This tightening could prove problematic for natural resources like coking coal, iron ore, or copper, commodities highly levered to the Chinese real estate market and of which China recently accumulated large inventories (Chart I-11). Chart I-10An Unusual Move Chart I-11Elevated Chinese Metal Inventories Additionally, on the back of the longest expansion in the global credit impulse in a decade, G10 economic surprises have become very perky. However, it will be difficult to beat expectations going forward. Not only have investors ratcheted up their global growth expectations, the recent increase in global interest rates limits the capacity of the credit impulse to grow further. In fact, the recent tightening in U.S. banks credit standards for consumer loans, the fall in the quit rates in the U.S. labor market, and the underperformance of junk bonds relative to Treasurys since late January only re-inforce this message. Sagging global growth, even if temporary, is always a problem for commodities and commodity currencies. The euro faces its own risk: France. Last week, along with our colleagues from BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, we wrote that the chance of a Le Pen electoral victory is still extremely low and we would buy the euro on any sell-off caused by a rising euro-area breakup risk premium.2 Yet, we are not oblivious to the risk that before the second round of the election is over on May 7th, investors can continue to place bets that Marine will win and that France will exit the euro area. The recent widening of the OAT/Bund spread reflects these exact dynamics as François Fillon's hardship and Macron's love life have taken center stage. So real has been the perception of this risk that spreads on Italian and Spanish bonds have followed suit (Chart I-12). While we are inclined to lean against this move, it is a risk that investors may want to bet on or hedge against. At the current juncture, the euro is fully pricing in these developments, and no mispricing is evident. However, as our model based on real rates differentials, commodity prices, and intra-European spreads shows, if France spreads were to widen further, EUR/USD could suffer (Chart I-13). In fact, if French spreads retest their 2011 levels, the euro could fall toward parity. Chart I-12Le Pen Is Causing A Repricing ##br##Of The Euro Area's Breakup Chance Chart I-13The Euro Will Suffer If French ##br##Bonds Underperform Further Investors wanting to speculate on the French election but wanting to avoid taking on some USD exposure can do so by shorting EUR/SEK, a very profitable strategy when the euro crisis was raging (Chart I-14) or could short EUR/GBP, as interest rates expectations have begun to move against the common currency and in favor of the pound (Chart I-15). While EUR/CHF tends to weaken during times of euro-duress, it is currently trading close to the unofficial SNB floor and we worry that growing intervention by the Swiss central bank will limit any downside on this pair. The currency that is likely to benefit the most against the dollar remains the yen. Not only are investors still very short the yen, but based on our intermediate-term timing model, the yen remains very attractive (Chart I-16). Moreover, the recent large improvement In the Japanese inventory-to-shipment ratio only highlights that the Japanese economy has gathered momentum, decreasing the likelihood of an enlargement of the current set of ultra-stimulative measures from the BoJ. Chart I-14Short EUR/SEK: A Hedge Against Le Pen Chart I-15Downside Risk For EUR/GBP Chart I-16Yen: Biggest Winner If USD Corrects Additionally, any risk-off event caused by a correction of the reflation trade would benefit the yen. Falling commodity prices will hurt Japanese inflation expectations and lift real rate differentials in favor of the yen. A correction in the reflation trade would also put downward pressure on global bond yields, which means that due to the low yield-beta of JGBs, Japanese nominal interest rates spread would further contribute to a narrowing of real interest rate differentials in favor of the JPY. Finally, if investors begin to bet even more aggressively on a breakup of the euro area fueled by the perceived prospects of a Le Pen electoral victory, the vicious wave of risk aversion unleashed around the globe by such an event would likely support the yen beyond our expectations. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism", dated January 27, 207, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Foreign Exchange/ Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution", dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 As we highlighted in previous reports, DXY's losses extended no further than the 99-100 support range, and the index has rebounded since then. A key external driver of the USD is EUR, whose roll-over has coincided with the DXY's rebound. In the coming months, EUR/USD could display downside risk as markets price in election jitters. This could be bullish for the greenback. The budget plan is in discussion. Due in around a month, the tentative plan comprises tax cuts and defense spending mostly. While this is still speculative, this plan may be bullish for the dollar. Until then, it is likely that the DXY will follow in its seasonal trend and be largely unchanged with little upside this month. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017 - January 20, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Two main factors are weighing on the euro this week. Firstly, Draghi continues to retain his dovish stance. He stated that there is still "significant degree of labour market slack", which is limiting wage growth, a key contributor to underlying inflation. Secondly, and more substantial, are politically-induced anxieties in the run up to the European elections. In particular, French elections have increased risk premia, forcing the 10-year OAT-Bund spread to reach early-2014 highs. Greek 2-year yields have also spiked above 10%. Volatility is likely to be elevated in the lead up to the French election and possibly through Italian elections. The longer-term outlook will remain dictated by the development of the ECB's monetary policy stance. Report Links: The French Revolution - February 3, 2017 GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Then yen continues to rally, with USD/JPY already down by almost 5% this year. Uncertainty surrounding the European elections should help continue this trend, given that the yen should benefit from safe haven flows. Nevertheless, the outlook for the yen remains bearish on a cyclical basis, as the measures that the BoJ has taken, such as anchoring 10-year rates near 0, and switching to de facto price level targeting will eventually lower Japanese real rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The BoJ has taken these measures to kick start an economy plagued by deflation. Early returns from this policy are mixed: Machinery Orders grew by 6.7% YoY, outperforming expectations. However both housing starts growth and Nikkei Manufacturing PMI fell below expectations, coming at 3.9% and 52.7 respectively. Report Links: Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 On Wednesday, the U.K. House of Commons finally gave their approval to a bill authorizing the government to start exits talks with the European Union. The House of Lords will be the next hurdle that Brexit hopefuls will have to overcome. Although cable suffered from some volatility following the decision it has remained relatively unaffected. We continue to think that the pound has further upside, particularly against the euro, as the negative consequences of Brexit on the British economy are already well priced into cable. Furthermore, increasing uncertainty regarding the French elections should also be bearish for EUR/GBP. If the fear of a Le Pen presidency starts to increase, Brexit will become an afterthought as exiting the European Union takes on a completely different meaning if the integrity of the EU starts being put into question. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The RBA held rates at 1.5% this week on the basis of upbeat business and consumer confidence, and above-trend growth in advanced economies. This decision helped the AUD, as investors repriced dovish bets and interpreted a change in stance. While above-trend growth is possible, Chinese demand is particularly important for Australia. Last week, the PBoC silently tightened their 7-, 14-, and 28-day reverse repo rates by 10 bps each to help alleviate looming risks in the real estate market and general financial stability. This may signal an end to an easing cycle, which may limit demand growth going forward. Australia has its own financial worries. Household debt is at its highest ever, at 186% of disposable income, which would be catastrophic if rates are raised. Lowe also highlighted concerns about a strong AUD and its impact on Australia's economic transition. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The RBNZ decided to keep interest rates unchanged at 1.75% in their monetary policy meeting this Wednesday. Additionally, as expected, Governor Graeme Wheeler stated that the RBNZ had shifted from having a dovish bias to a having neutral one. Nevertheless, the kiwi has depreciated sharply since the announcement, not only because Governor Wheeler highlighted that the currency "remains higher than is sustainable for balanced growth" but also because the RBNZ showed a cautious approach by stating that "premature tightening of policy could undermine growth and forestall the anticipated gradual increase in inflation". However, we believe that the RBNZ will turn more hawkish, as inflationary forces in the economy will eventually put upward pressure on rates. This will lift the NZD, particularly against the AUD. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Uncertainty has come up as a key issue in the Bank of Canada's headlights, as Poloz remains nervous about the future of U.S.-Canada relations. CAD has recently displayed some strength despite this uncertainty. It has appreciated against USD, AUD and NZD. This is likely due to a brightening perception of the Canadian economy with the Ivey PMI recording a reading above 50 for January, at 52.3, above the previous 49.3. Additionally, housing starts beat expectations, dampening housing market concerns. Exports have been strong, which has also fed into this appreciation. A rapidly appreciating currency would exacerbate trade concerns further and adversely affect the Canadian economy. Therefore, it is likely that the BoC remains tilted to the dovish side, which will generate downside for the CAD through rate differentials. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has reached its lowest level since August 2015. At around 1.065, this cross is hovering in the lower range of the implied floor set by the SNB. Increased uncertainty caused by the upcoming European elections cycle will continue to test this floor, as the increased odds of an Eurosceptic government in France will not only decrease the value of the euro but will also put upward pressure on the franc, given its safe haven status. Nevertheless, the SNB will do everything in its power to weaken its currency as the Swiss economy continues to be plagued by deflationary forces: After showing glimpses of a recovery last month Real retail sales contracted by 3.5% YoY, falling well short of expectations. The SVMI Purchasing Manager's Index also came below expectations coming in at 54.6. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has rebounded after reaching 8.20, its lowest level since Trump got elected. Interestingly, the NOK has not been as correlated with oil prices since the start of 2017 as it has been in the past. This is a trend worth monitoring. The inflation picture remains complex, although core and headline inflation have deaccelerated slightly as of late, inflation expectations are at their highest level of the last 9 years. Additionally house prices are growing at nearly 20%, a pace not seen since before the 2008 crisis. The Norges Bank is now facing a tough dilemma between risking an inflation overshoot if they keep their dovish bias or raising rates in an economy where growth for employment, real retail sales and nominal GDP is still in negative territory. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK continues to duplicate the dollar's movements, rolling over slightly from the 7% appreciation it saw over a month and a half. A more accurate measure of the SEK's value, EUR/SEK, paints a similar picture. These movements have been more or less in line with the Riksbank's desired developments, as it indicates a deceleration in the pace of recent appreciation. However, we believe that the rebound in EUR/SEK is not likely to run further. Political turbulence is being priced into the euro. After sustaining near oversold levels, the rebound could be nothing more than momentum exiting from oversold territories. Nevertheless, it is likely that EUR/SEK will correct in the coming months due to European elections. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Fears that the Trump Administration will brow-beat America's trading partners into strengthening their currencies have pushed down the dollar in recent weeks. The likelihood of another Plaza-type accord remains extremely low, however. History suggests that such agreements only work when currency interventions are aligned with the underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. With the Fed eager to hike rates, that is not the case today. The only situation where a multilateral agreement to weaken the dollar could be reached is one where the dollar ascends so high that major financial stresses begin to form, particularly in emerging markets. We are not there yet. The real trade-weighted dollar is likely to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. A stronger greenback will hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. Feature Dollar Under Pressure Chart 1The Recent Dollar Dip Is Not ##br##Reflected In Interest Rate Spreads After rallying sharply following the U.S. presidential election, the greenback has given up some of its gains. Since peaking in late December, the trade-weighted dollar has fallen by around 2.5%. Notably, the dollar's swoon has not been accompanied by a narrowing of 2-year real interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 1). This suggests that shifts in relative growth expectations have played a relatively minor role during this latest dollar selloff. In our view, the more important factor has been the "weak dollar" rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration. Historically, U.S. officials have at least given lip service to America's "strong dollar policy." As with many other political customs, Trump has thrown this one out the window. Peter Navarro, head of Trump's National Trade Council, made headlines last week by calling Germany a "currency manipulator" - even though, strictly speaking, Germany does not have a currency to manipulate. This came on the heels of Trump's comments to The Wall Street Journal earlier in January where he lamented that "our currency is too strong... it's killing us." The President reiterated that sentiment last week, telling a group of pharmaceutical company executives: "You look at what China's doing, you look at what Japan has done over the years ... they play the devaluation market and we sit there like a bunch of dummies." A Deal That Worked The Trump administration's efforts to talk down the dollar have raised the question of whether another Plaza Accord is on the horizon. The original agreement was concluded at The Plaza Hotel in 1985. As fate would have it, Trump ended up buying the landmark property three years later. It would go on to be the setting for such historically momentous events as Trump's wedding to Marla Maples and his Oscar-worthy cameo in Home Alone 2: Lost In New York. The Plaza Accord prescribed that G5 nations - the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., and France - intervene in currency markets with the aim of driving down the value of the dollar. At least in this respect, the Accord was a smashing success. Between early 1985 - when rumors of a deal began to swirl - and January 1987, the dollar fell by 54% against both the yen and the mark, 49% against the franc, and 44% against the pound. In fact, so effective was the Plaza Accord that it necessitated the Louvre Accord two years later, an agreement that was drawn up in order to halt the dollar's slide. Chart 2A Widening Current Account ##br##Deficit Sowed The Seeds For The Plaza Accord Then And Now: Some Similarities... There are some clear similarities between 1985 and the present. Just like today, the greenback strengthened significantly in the years leading up to the Accord. At first, the Reagan administration was content to let the dollar appreciate, seeing this as validation of its pro-growth policies. The Fed was also happy to go along with a stronger dollar since lower import prices helped to dampen inflation. As time wore on, however, the damage from an overvalued dollar became increasingly apparent: The current account balance swung from a modest surplus at the start of the 1980s to a deficit of 2.7% of GDP by the end of 1985 (Chart 2). The Big Three automakers, along with companies such as Caterpillar, IBM, and Motorola, began to lobby the U.S. government for trade sanctions against foreign competitors. With Reagan's appointment of James Baker to the post of Treasury Secretary in February 1985, U.S. trade policy moved away from being governed by a doctrinaire free market philosophy and took on a more pragmatic tone. Fearing further protectionist measures, the Japanese and Europeans agreed to take action to strengthen their currencies. ...But Some Notable Differences Despite the clear parallels between 1985 and the present, there are also a number of critical differences. First, there is the issue of magnitude. By early 1985, the greenback was entering the seventh year of a massive bull market - one that had lifted the real broad trade-weighted dollar up 53% from its lows in October 1978 (Chart 3). In contrast, the current dollar bull market is a mere 2.5 years old and has seen the dollar strengthen by "only" 20% since July 2014. Moreover, the current bull market began from a point where the dollar was highly undervalued. As a consequence, as of today, the real trade-weighted dollar remains 21% below its 1985 peak and 11% below its 2002 peak. Second, one of the reasons the Plaza Accord worked so well was because policymakers ensured that their currency interventions were consistent with the macroeconomic fundamentals. The combination of tight monetary policy and loose fiscal policy created a fertile backdrop for the dollar's ascent in the early 1980s. By 1984, however, those bullish dollar fundamentals started to break down. Chart 4 shows that the dollar continued to appreciate into 1985, even though U.S. interest rates were declining relative to other G5 economies. The dollar, in other words, had entered a full-fledged bubble - one that was ripe for a pricking. Chart 3The Dollar Is ##br##Below Past Peaks Chart 4A Full-Fledged Dollar ##br##Bubble Preceded The Plaza Accord Once the dollar bubble burst, monetary policy amplified the downward pressure on the greenback. Most notably, the Federal Reserve continued cutting interest rates, ultimately taking the effective Fed funds rate down from 11.8% in July 1984 to 5.8% in October 1986. As a result, the 2-year nominal interest rate differential shrank by 454 basis points against Japan over this period. For the U.K., the interest rate differential fell by 630 basis points, while for Germany it declined by 407 basis points. In contrast to the mid-1980s, the Fed is unlikely to lean into dollar weakness this time around. The output gap in the U.S. has been nearly eliminated and the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. This suggests that the Federal Reserve will keep raising rates. We expect the Fed to hike rates three times this year, one more than the market is pricing in. Most other central banks are nowhere near the point where they can start tightening monetary policy. As such, the interest rate differential between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen further. In a world where foreign exchange trading now exceeds $5 trillion per day, any currency intervention - unless it is backed by an underlying shift in the economic fundamentals - is bound to backfire. A Political Reality Check Chart 5China's Weight Matters Political considerations also render another Plaza Accord highly improbable. In the 1980s, West Germany and Japan were politically subservient to the U.S. That is less the case today. China's role in the global economy has also expanded. The RMB now accounts for 22% of the Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar basket, the largest weight of any country (Chart 5). China's government will fiercely resist negotiating any agreement that is not in the country's best interests. The economic circumstances facing most of America's trading partners could also scuttle any hopes for a deal to weaken the dollar. Inflation expectations in Japan have risen over the past six months, but still remain well below the BoJ's 2% target. A stronger yen would undermine efforts to reflate the economy. The German economy is certainly benefiting from an undervalued exchange rate. However, a continued weak currency is necessary for Southern Europe, where unemployment is still very high. Moreover, it is not clear that Germany could stomach a much stronger euro. The German unemployment rate is at a 25-year low, but that is because the country is running a massive 9% of GDP current account surplus. Take away Germany's ability to export its excess savings abroad, and the German economy would look a lot like Japan's. The only scenario in which a new multilateral accord would be seriously entertained is if a rising dollar began to wreak havoc on the global economy. A modestly stronger dollar would boost global growth to the extent that it redistributed demand from the U.S. to economies such as Europe and Japan with greater levels of economic slack. However, if the greenback were to ascend into bubble territory, this could instigate a vicious circle where an appreciating dollar increases the local-currency value of EM dollar-denominated debt, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and defaults, and, in the process, generating even further selling pressure on EM currencies. That said, the dollar would probably need to appreciate by another 15% or so before a crisis occurred. And even if a meltdown seemed imminent, the bar for currency intervention would remain quite high. No emerging market wants to go cap-in-hand to the IMF or the U.S. Treasury. This is particularly true for China, which would likely shun any offers of assistance, even if capital were flooding out of the country. In any case, if a deal were reached, it would likely seek to prevent the dollar from rising further, rather than falling in value. That is a critical distinction. Trump, Trade, And The Fed The discussion above suggests that a new Plaza-style accord is not in the cards, at least not unless the dollar strengthens substantially from current levels. Where does that leave Trump's pledge to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.? We see two possible ways that Trump could try to square this circle. First, Trump could lean on the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative monetary stance. Since inflation expectations are likely to rise further as the economy begins to overheat, it is possible that real rates would actually decline unless the Fed raised rates fast enough, pushing down the dollar in the process. The problem with this theory is that Trump's public pronouncements on monetary policy have generally been on the hawkish side. He criticized Janet Yellen on the campaign trail, accusing her of trying to goose the economy in order to help the Democrats at the polls. Granted, Trump's views on the hard money/easy money debate may have changed now that he is President and poised to benefit politically from a more stimulative monetary policy. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for him to make a complete U-turn on the subject, especially since Congressional Republicans are likely to resist efforts to pack the FOMC with doves. As long as the economy is doing well, our guess is that Trump will accede to Republican demands that he nominate members to the FOMC with a somewhat hawkish disposition. This should keep the dollar uptrend intact. If a policy U-turn does occur, it will happen towards the end of the decade, by which time the economy will be due for another recession. With another presidential election looming at that point, Trump might end up taking a page out of the old Nixon playbook and browbeat the Fed chair into pursuing a massively expansionary monetary policy.1 This could set the stage for a stagflationary episode, a prediction we discussed at length in our latest Strategy Outlook.2 In the meantime, Trump will try to mitigate the effects of a stronger dollar on U.S. manufacturing by pursuing a more protectionist trade agenda. This is likely to entail expanding the use of countervailing duties which target foreign industries that are alleged to be engaging in unfair trade practices - similar to what Obama did when he slapped an extra 35% duty onto Chinese tires in 2009. Trump is also likely to continue "twitter shaming" companies that have moved, or are contemplating moving, production abroad. On the whole, however, a radical departure from existing trade policy is unlikely as long as the economy continues to expand. Nevertheless, as with his approach to Fed policy, Trump could break with all established traditions if unemployment starts rising and his poll numbers begin tumbling. In other words, a major trade war is coming, just not yet. Investment Conclusions Chart 6The Dollar Can Climb Amid ##br##Bullish Sentiment In politics, as in life, preferences are not the only things that matter. Constraints are as important, if not more so. Just as in the early 1980s, the U.S. is pursing a policy of fiscal easing and monetary tightening. As was the case back then, this has led to a stronger dollar. It would be easy to say that Trump could badger other countries into tightening monetary policy in order to keep the dollar from appreciating. Even if we ignore the political implausibility of such a strategy, it still would not work. If a country needs a low interest rate to keep growth from stalling, then raising rates is unlikely to boost that country's currency. The market will realize in short order that the central bank will eventually have to reverse course and cut rates to keep deflationary forces from setting in. The point is that trying to influence exchange rates without changing the economic fundamentals is destined to fail. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. Granted, bullish dollar sentiment is widespread these days (Chart 6). However, dollar bulls were around in even greater numbers in the second half of the 1990s, and this did not prevent the greenback from scaling to new highs. If the dollar resumes its ascent, as we expect, this could hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. A stronger greenback would also weigh on commodity prices, with metals being the most vulnerable. The risks to our dollar view are fairly symmetric. On the downside, the failure of the Trump administration to loosen fiscal policy could prevent the Fed from hiking rates as much as planned. The risk here is not so much that the tax cuts will be scuttled, but rather that Congressional Republicans succeed in pushing through big spending cuts as part of any budget deal. On the upside, the passage of a Border Adjustment Tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - would lift the dollar.3 Rising stress in emerging markets could also push money into safe haven markets such as U.S. Treasurys, similar to what happened during the late 1990s. This could cause the dollar to appreciate more than our baseline forecast implies. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence From The Nixon Tapes," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, no. 4 (2006), pp.177-188. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The latest adjustment of the interest rates of some PBoC lending facilities reflects China's ongoing moves toward market-driven interest rate reforms. Domestic growth improvement calls for higher interest rates, but it is too soon to conclude whether the latest interest rate adjustment is the beginning of a new tightening cycle or a temporary pause in a broad reflation process. The PBoC will remain data dependent and policy will remain accommodative. The interest rate increases in the PBoC lending facilities will likely lead to higher cost of funding for the corporate sector as well as mortgage borrowers The economic impact of the rising cost of funding should not be significant. Feature In the past three weeks, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has raised the interest rates it charges financial institutions through various lending facilities. Questions abound over how the PBoC's latest maneuvers differ from their traditional monetary policy tools, and more importantly how these changes impact the economy and financial markets. What? In a slew of actions since late January, the PBoC has increased interest rates on several liquidity management facilities. On January 25th interest rates on the Medium-Term Lending facility (MLF) were raised, the first increase since the MLF debuted in 2014. Last week interest rates on reverse repurchase agreements (repos) were also hiked by 10 basis points. Meanwhile, interest rates on the Standing Lending Facility (SLF) were also lifted. Overall, these actions have increased financial institutions' funding costs on borrowing from the central bank. Table 1The PBoC's Tool Box There have been important changes in how the PBoC conducts monetary policy in recent years. While conventional measures such as the benchmark lending rate and reserve requirement ratio (RRR) have not been abandoned, the PBoC has been increasingly focusing on utilizing various new tools (Table 1).1 The RRR has been left unchanged, while the central bank has been actively dealing with financial institutions directly to manage interbank liquidity. The latest move shows a further departure from conventional monetary operations: instead of directly adjusting benchmark policy rates on lending and deposits of commercial banks, the PBoC has targeted interest rates on its claims to financial institutions. These changes reflect China's ongoing moves toward market-driven interest rate reforms, which at this stage have become quite advanced. Commercial banks are no longer under the administrative constraints on interest rates they pay to depositors and charge borrowers, and therefore their marginal cost of funding has become increasingly important for setting their own loan rates. Meanwhile, targeting interest rates of these lending facilities rather than benchmark interest rates or the RRR provides some important advantages from the PBoC's point of view. The newly created alphabet soup of various lending facilities gives the PBoC much more flexibility to "fine-tune" interbank liquidity in terms of both magnitude and timing, and can be quickly reversed if necessary. The RRR adjustment, on the other hand, is inherently much more blunt and harder to turn. These lending facilities can aid the central bank's macro-prudential policy. For example, banks that fail to meet certain conditions of the macro-prudential assessment (MPA) will have to pay punitive interest rates to borrow from the PBoC. Similarly, the PBoC can offer subsidized loans to policy lenders for certain prioritized projects. Direct adjustment on commercial banks' loan and deposit rates is not only against the broad trend of the country's interest rate reform, but also requires coordination of various government departments under the State Council. The PBoC has much higher discretion in changing its own interest rates that it charges commercial banks. Chart 1Policy Rates Catch Up To The Market Why? The PBoC's latest adjustments on interest rates of various lending facilities and open market operations should not be surprising, given the significant increase in interbank interest rates and domestic bond yields since late last year. For example, both the seven-day interbank rate and one-year government bond yields have increased from about 2.3% to 2.6% (Chart 1). If the PBoC left its short-term lending rates unchanged, it would potentially create arbitrage opportunities in which commercial banks could borrow from the central bank and lend out to other institutions. In other words, the PBoC has already begun to tighten by allowing market interest rates to inch higher since late last year, and the recent policy rate adjustment is in fact a "catch-up." A few reasons may be behind the central bank's tightening bias. The economy has recovered considerably, with both quickening activity and easing deflation. Nominal GDP growth accelerated to 9.6% in the last quarter, up from a bottom of 6.5% in late 2015 when benchmark interest rates were cut to current levels2 (Chart 2). The January macro numbers are likely distorted by the Chinese New Year effect, but holiday sales have been quite strong compared with a year ago, and the latest PMI numbers suggest continued acceleration in both the industrial and service sectors. All of this naturally calls for higher interest rates. It is possible that the January credit numbers are uncomfortably high for the PBoC, which may have pushed the authorities to send a signal to lenders to cool things off to prevent overheating and damp further property price gains. The central bank has been concerned about leverage and overtrading in the interbank market as well as local bond markets by financial institutions, and the latest tightening moves have also been designed to reduce financial excess (Chart 3). Repo transactions in the interbank market have already dropped sharply since late year when the PBoC began to push interest rates higher. This, together with regulators' latest administrative overhaul on commercial banks' wealth management products and off-balance-sheet items, all underscore the determination to rein in excesses in the banking sector. Chart 2Growth Rebound Generates Upward Pressure ##br##On Interest Rates Chart 3The PBoC Aims To Tame##br## Financial Excess So What? Whatever the reason, the PBoC will likely continue to shift away from "conventional" tools and increasingly focus on the new framework that has emerged in recent years in conducting monetary policy. Benchmark loan and deposits rates are already on the way out, and the RRR will also be gradually faded. The problem is that the RRR is still at 17% for large banks and 15% for smaller lenders - both of which are still elevated compared with historical norms. As a result, commercial banks have been putting ever rising reserve deposits with the central bank, while at the same time their borrowings from the PBoC have also skyrocketed - leading to an ever-expanding balance sheet at the PBoC (Chart 4). Technically, it is likely that the RRR will be lowered to a more reasonable level, cutting the central bank's liability, while at the same time the PBoC can reduce its claims to commercial banks on the asset side. This operation will shrink the PBoC's balance sheet, but does not necessarily change the liquidity situation in the banking system. It is too soon to conclude whether the latest interest rate adjustment is the beginning of a new tightening cycle or a temporary pause in a broad reflation process. We expect the PBoC will remain data dependent, and that the Federal Reserve's actions will also be taken into consideration. In the near term, a few observations can be made. First, the interest rate increases in the PBoC lending facilities, together with the increase in market-driven interest rates, will likely lead to higher cost of funding for the corporate sector as well as mortgage borrowers (Chart 5). Already, discount rates of bank acceptance bills, a proxy for short-term funding costs of the corporate sector tightly linked with interbank rates, have surged in recent months. The expected returns of Wealth Management Products (WMPs), an alternative to conventional bank deposits that set banks' marginal funding costs, have also picked up notably since October. This means the average interest rate on commercial banks' loans likely have already been rising. Chart 4The PBoC's Liquidity Operation Chart 5Corporate Cost Of Borrowing Will Likely Rise The economic impact of the rising cost of funding should not be meaningful, in our view, as it is accompanied by a strengthening economy and easing deflation. The overall monetary conditions index, which takes into consideration both real interest rates and the exchange rate, has continued to ease, thanks largely to the rapid increase in producer prices. Furthermore, there is still massive scope for the Chinese authorities to reform the financial sector and reduce the funding costs of the country's dynamic smaller private enterprises - although falling sharply in recent years, the Wenzhou private loan rate, a proxy for private enterprises' borrowing costs, still stands at 16% (Chart 6). This will likely continue to drift lower as the country's financial reforms continue to deepen. In short, the latest policy tightening does not change our cyclical assessment on the broader economy. In this vein, higher interest rates may introduce some near-term turbulence in stocks, but will not change the cyclical profile. The marginal increase in interest rates will not derail the growth improvement, profit growth should continue to recover and policymakers are unlikely to overkill. Meanwhile, strategically we continue to favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Finally, rising interest rates in China should lend some support to the RMB, due to the close link between China-U.S. interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY exchange rate (Chart 7). The interest rate gap between Chinese government bonds and U.S. Treasurys has widened notably since late last year, which should marginally make RMB assets more attractive in the near term. Nonetheless, the broad trend of the dollar against other majors will remain the dominant force setting the USD/CNY cross rate. The PBoC still faces challenges to contain capital outflows and maintain exchange rate stability. Chart 6Private Loan Rate Needs ##br##To Drop Further Chart 7China - U.S. Interest Rate Gap And##br## USD/CNY Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Closer Look At The PBoC's Balance Sheet," dated September 23, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global competitiveness equalisation occurs: For Germany, at EUR/USD = 1.35 For the Euro area, at EUR/USD = 1.20 For Spain, at EUR/USD = 1.17 For France, at EUR/USD = 1.15 For Italy, at EUR/USD = 1.10 But today EUR/USD = 1.07. The main culprit for the over-competitive euro is the ECB. Feature President Trump is right about one thing. The ECB's own analysis - available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats - shows that the trade-weighted euro needs to appreciate by 10% to cancel the euro area's competitive advantage versus its major trading partners including the United States. To cancel Germany's competitive advantage, the ECB calculates that the euro needs to appreciate by 25% (Chart I-1). Chart I-1ECB Analysis Supports President Trump: ##br##The Euro Is Over-Competitive Even more controversially, the central bank's own analysis shows that the ECB itself is to blame for the euro area's significant competitive advantage. Prior to the ECB's extreme and unprecedented policy easing, the euro area's competitiveness was exactly in line with its trading partners (Chart I-2). The ECB says that it does not target the exchange rate, but it is fully aware that negative interest rates and trillions of euros of asset purchases carry major ramifications for the euro's value. Chart I-2The ECB Caused The Over-Competitive Euro The ECB's Ultra-Looseness Is Counterproductive The ECB could be forgiven for its ultra-looseness if the euro area were on the edge of a deflationary abyss. But as we showed in Fake News In Europe1 euro area inflation and inflation expectations are little different to those in other major economies when compared on an apples for apples basis. Chart I-3Emergency Monetary Policy##br## Not Needed Furthermore, the euro area is among the world's top-performing major economies through the past three years (well before ECB easing started), and the percentage of the working age population in employment is at an all-time high. These are hardly the hallmarks of an imminent deflationary threat which warrants emergency monetary policy (Chart I-3). Perhaps the ECB's ultra-looseness is trying to quell a flare-up of ever-present political risk. If so, the strategy is becoming counterproductive. As well as irking President Trump, the extreme policy is riling Germany's Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who has blamed Mario Draghi for "50 per cent" of the success of the populist right-wing Alternativ Für Deutschland. And by frustrating voters worried about the low interest rates on their hard-earned savings, the ECB is also playing right into the hands of Marine Le Pen's Front Nationale. Admittedly, the euro area's current economic 'mini-upswing' is likely approaching its end. But as we showed last week in Slowdown: How And When?,2 a deceleration is likely to be even more pronounced outside the euro area. Even the ECB acknowledges that "the risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook relate predominantly to global factors" rather than domestic factors. If the ECB is right, the extent of anticipated monetary tightening outside the euro area is overdone. If the ECB is wrong, then the extent of anticipated monetary tightening inside the euro area is underdone (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Either way, the investment conclusion is the same. Chart I-4Expected Divergence In Monetary Policy Drives##br## Relative Bond Market Performance... Chart I-5... And ##br##The Euro Stay underweight German bunds versus U.S. Treasuries. Stay long the euro, with our preferred crosses being euro/pound in the near term and euro/yuan in the long term. And given that euro/pound (inversely) drives relative stock market performance, stay underweight Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100. The Great Currency Manipulation Manipulation: (noun) - the controlling or influencing of a situation cleverly. The creation of the euro in 1999 was arguably the greatest currency manipulation of modern times. To be absolutely clear, this is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. In 1999, when European policymakers killed national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta and replaced them with the new-born euro, the action clearly fitted the dictionary definition of manipulation. Our preceding analysis about the euro area's competitive advantage today assumes that the euro started its life at the right value. The evidence suggests that this assumption is correct. In 1999, the euro area' external trade was in balance, and the bloc's real competitiveness versus its major trading partners was exactly in line with its long-term average. Likewise the evidence suggests that national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta converted to the euro at the right exchange rates. The euro area's constituent economies had much in common in 1999 and were broadly in balance with each other. Surprising as it now seems, in 1999 Germany and Italy scored identically on exports as a share of GDP (Chart I-6) and on total debt as a share of GDP (Chart I-7). And German wages had been rising in lockstep with productivity (Chart I-8). Chart I-6After The Euro, Germany's ##br##Exports Soared Chart I-7After The Euro,##br## Italy's Debt Soared Chart I-8After The Euro, German Wages##br## Lagged Productivity It was only in the decade after 1999 that the euro area developed its major internal imbalances. Germany depressed its wages relative to productivity and used the resulting ultra-competitiveness to build an export-driven business model. In the seven years before 1999, net exports had made zero contribution to Germany's economic growth (Chart I-9), but in the seven years after 1999, net exports accounted for all of Germany's economic growth (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Germany Pre Euro: Net Exports ##br##Contributed Nothing To Growth Chart I-10Germany Post Euro: Net Exports Contributed ##br##Everything To Growth Prior to the one-size-fits-all exchange rate, a rising deutschemark would have largely snuffed out the increased competitiveness from wage depression and thereby thwarted the export-driven business model. However, once locked in the euro, Germany's exchange rate could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off external demand. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain could suddenly rely on a debt-driven business model - especially given that their strong national cultures of homeownership provided the perfect collateral for borrowing. Prior to the one-size-fits-all interest rate, higher domestic interest rates would have thwarted this business model. But once locked in the monetary union, their interest rates could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off borrowing. By 2010, the imbalances had become monsters. Germany, through its wage depression, had become 20% over-competitive versus its major trading partners. Spain and Italy, through their reliance on debt-fuelled growth, had become 20% under-competitive. Understand that this is not a morality tale of good versus bad, as many commentators portray. The mirror-image imbalances were just the opposite sides of the same (euro) coin. Spain Is The Star-Performer Today, the good news is that the euro area's internal imbalances have narrowed sharply, as the under-competitive economies have taken draconian corrective measures. External competitiveness has also been boosted by a substantially weaker euro. The bad news is that Germany's over-competitiveness versus the world remains excessive. But as Wolfgang Schäuble correctly argues, it is extremely difficult for Germany to rebalance its global competitiveness when it is swimming against the tide of the ECB's extreme easing and resulting depression of the euro. The award for the most spectacular rebalancing goes to Spain. Eight years ago, Spain was 15% less competitive than France on the ECB's harmonised competitiveness indicator based on unit labour costs. Today, on the same measure Spain is 2% more competitive than France. This makes it very difficult to justify any yield premium on Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. The yield premium is a compensation for perceived redenomination risk. The expected annual loss of owning a Bono versus an OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. But if Spain is now as competitive as France, a new peseta ultimately should be as valuable as a new franc. The second item of the multiplication would be zero (Chart I-11). So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the yield premium should also be zero. Yet today, Spanish 10-year Bonos are still trading at a substantial 65 bps yield premium over French 10-year OATs (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Spain Is As Competitive ##br##As France... Chart I-12... Bonos Should Not Have A ##br##Yield Premium Over OATs Stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on January 26, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Published on February 2, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* A tactically short position in equities is warranted. 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-13 * 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 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. 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 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax is likely to pass; Yet the political pieces are not in place; Trump himself will be the decisive factor; Trade retaliation would detract from trade benefits of the tax; Stay long volatility; small caps versus large caps; and long USD versus EM currencies. Remain short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks, and German exporters versus consumer services. Feature Donald Trump is a trend-setter. After winning the U.S. election on a protectionist platform that played well to voters in the Midwest, Trump has established an anti-globalization brand of politics. His success has revealed the preferences of the American "median voter."1 Other U.S. politicians are taking notice. The "Border Adjustment Tax" (BAT) is part of this new political trend, though it did not originate with Trump. The House GOP leadership has presented it as a response to economic dislocation in the American heartland, which propelled Trump to the White House. Is it protectionism? Yes, and in this analysis we explain why. The rest of the world is highly unlikely to treat the BAT as a standard Value Added Tax (VAT). It will therefore spark trade retaliation unless Congress addresses outstanding issues. So far President Trump is on the fence, and his support is necessary for passage. We think he will ultimately go with the proposal. The prospect of turning the tables on the U.S.'s trade partners, while spurring domestic investment and capital spending, speaks to his core promises to his voters. Trump's support for the plan should be read as a headwind for markets in the short term due to the uncertainties of implementation and trade disputes. If he should oppose the plan, it would be bullish for U.S. stocks in the short term, since it would mean cutting the corporate tax without radically altering the global status quo. It would signal that he is more interested in economic growth and corporate profits than changing the world or balancing the U.S. budget. Why Reform The Corporate Tax System? American policymakers have long struggled with the country's corporate income tax system. Leaving aside party politics, there are three main complaints:2 Corporate tax revenues are weak: Revenues have disappointed as companies have shifted profits to tax havens and used deductions and loopholes to avoid paying the 35% statutory rate. This erosion of the tax base has contributed to budget deficits as well as public dissatisfaction with governing institutions (Chart 1). U.S. companies have lost competitiveness: American businesses are overtaxed relative to their developed-market peers, taking a toll on competitiveness both at home and abroad (Chart 2). The middle class is losing out: U.S. workers are not as well compensated as their developed-market peers and have lost their share of American wealth in recent decades (Chart 3). The corporate tax contributes to this because companies foist the tax onto workers. Chart 1Over-Taxation Is In##br## The Eye Of The Beholder Chart 2U.S. Competitiveness##br## Has Suffered Chart 3Labor Suffers From##br## High Corporate Tax Rates The Republican Party examined fundamental tax reform in 2005 but could not make progress on it - instead it settled for the Bush tax cuts, which focused primarily on cutting household tax rates.3 Now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government again, its leaders are attempting broad tax reform anew. The GOP is primarily concerned with corporate competitiveness, but they also need to appease the middle class - the source of the populist angst that supported both Obama and Trump (the former being the Republicans' arch-nemesis, the latter a strange bedfellow). The GOP also wants to raise some revenue to make their desired tax rate cuts "revenue neutral," i.e. somewhat fiscally defensible, at least enough to pass the bill. Enter Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and their "Better Way" tax plan, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system.4 The core idea is to pay for tax cuts by transforming the current corporate income tax system into a "destination-based cash-flow tax" (DBCFT) with border adjustability ("border adjustment tax" or BAT for short).5 We will get to the definition of that, but first, what is the ultimate point? The plan would purportedly drive corporate investment and economic growth by allowing companies to write off the expense of new investments immediately, the first year, rather than gradually through depreciation. (Depreciation schedules often mean that the tax write-off barely covers the cost of investment, thereby causing companies to err on the side of risk-aversion.) The plan would also remove the preferential treatment of corporate debt over equity, which is built into the current tax code through the deduction of interest - this change would discourage corporate indebtedness and encourage equity financing. Finally the plan would not allow U.S. companies to write off the expense of imported goods, as currently, and as such is essentially a tax on the U.S. trade deficit. Roughly, it could yield about $108 billion in revenue (assuming a 20% rate on the $538 billion deficit). The BAT is the chief tax uncertainty today for investors. That is because there are few constraints on the GOP passing some kind of corporate tax cut this year. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. There is every reason to think it will happen fast. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In other words, Trump and his party would need to have a train wreck to fail to pass something this year. That is not beyond belief! But the overriding question is whether the tax reform will be focused on cutting rates, or transforming the system. Currently, the market seems to think the BAT will go through. A basket of stocks based on potential winners and losers suggests that investors believe it will pass (Chart 4). Meanwhile, however, the share prices of high-tax companies (who should benefit the most if taxes are cut) have fallen back from the pop after Trump's election. This could signal the opposite expectation, or that that investors recognize that many high-tax sectors stand to lose from a tax on imports (Chart 5). There is considerable uncertainty in this measure. We think the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's BAT proposal. But the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show. We expect dollar volatility, which is relatively restrained at present, to rise as the BAT debate intensifies, given that the proposal is bullish for the greenback (Chart 6). Chart 4Exporters Think Border##br## Adjustment Tax Will Pass Chart 5High-Tax Companies##br## Fear Policy Disappointments Chart 6No Border Adjustment##br## Tax Effect On The Dollar Yet Bottom Line: The Trump administration and GOP would have to be unusually incompetent to fail to achieve tax reform this year. The question is whether it will be mere rate cuts or a radical reform to the tax system as a whole. This is critical to the U.S. and global economy - especially given that the passage of a BAT will intensify trade disputes with the U.S. Why Is A Border Adjustment Tax "Protectionist"? Diagram 1 provides a simple illustration of how the current U.S. corporate tax works compared to the proposed BAT. The current system is a "worldwide" corporate income tax. The U.S. government taxes American companies based on their global profits (global revenues minus global costs). No matter where they incur costs, they can write them off, and no matter where they make profits, they must pay tax on them, at least in principle. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The new system, by contrast, would be a "destination-based" tax in which the government taxes companies only on domestic profits (domestic revenues minus domestic costs). This means that revenues earned abroad from exports or sales in foreign jurisdictions would be free from tax. However - and here is the tricky part - it also means that costs incurred abroad, imports or purchases in foreign jurisdictions, would be ignored by the tax authority, i.e. they could not be written off like domestic costs. As the "rebate" in the Diagram shows, the BAT is effectively a tax on imports and subsidy to exports. This is not as egregiously protectionist as it sounds at first, because it is very similar to a Value-Added Tax (VAT), which is the dominant tax system across the world. The U.S. is a massive outlier for not having a VAT. But notice that the amount of the rebate to the exporting company in the diagram is higher (at $40) than the amount of tax that would be due if it paid a tax on its foreign profits, since ($200 - $100) x 20% = $20. The WTO may rule against the law if it believes major U.S. exporters will pay net negative taxes as a result of the rebate. Moreover, the BAT has certain differences from a VAT that ensure that the world will see it as a protectionist affront. The BAT is a combination of a VAT, which is a tax on consumption, and an income tax, which is the current system. However, the BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current system. Under VAT systems, this is not possible because wages are not consumption and therefore not deductible.6 If the GOP proposal becomes law without addressing this difference - that is, without denying corporates the wage deduction, or taxing them in some other way to compensate - it will likely prompt global trade retaliation. While the World Trade Organization may deem the BAT legal by interpreting it as a VAT, it will not do so if U.S. companies cannot show that they are not getting a leg up on their international rivals by retaining the wage deduction from the former corporate income tax code. Wages are obviously a very large part of a company's expenses. They make up about 68-72% of U.S. companies' costs (Chart 7), and have grown at about 2-4% each year for the export-oriented sector (Chart 8). If U.S. companies can write off the wage expense in their exported goods, then foreign countries will have to adjust, possibly by imposing duties to counteract the share of taxes avoided by that write-off. Chart 7Wages Make For A Large Tax Deduction Chart 8Exporters Face Strong Growth In Wages Bottom Line: The BAT is a hybrid of tax systems. It is likely that the WTO and U.S. trading partners will object to it as an import tax and export subsidy, particularly because of the wage deduction. The House GOP could adjust the proposal ahead of time or afterwards to avoid this conflict, but that has not happened yet. In addition, corporate lobbying against removing wage deductions would be severe. Will A BAT Get Passed Into Law? Currently, the House GOP leaders face a rising wave of criticism about the BAT proposal and have begun to signal greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. A salient point to remember about U.S. tax legislation is that it is very rare in recent decades for a ruling party to bungle it. Only eight pieces of tax legislation have been vetoed by presidents since 1975, only two of which were serious bills, and in both cases the president vetoed the legislation pushed by an opposition-controlled Congress (Table 2). By the time a serious tax bill makes it to the president's desk, a veto is unlikely, especially if the president and Congress belong to the same party. Table 2Major Tax Legislation Is Set Up For Success Even more salient, only 23 pieces of tax legislation since 1975 have been struck down in either of the two houses. Of these, seven were attempts to amend the constitution (not likely to pass), nine were attempts to amend the internal revenue code for highly specific things (spirits, cigars, the holding of conventions on cruise ships). Only seven were major bills, and in only one of these cases did the Senate strike down the bill, which was a case of a Republican Senate defending a Republican president from an opposition Congress. In only one case did the ruling party in the House kill a serious tax bill proposed by one of its own members, but it is not comparable to the tax reform in question today.7 What this means is that the BAT is highly likely to be passed into law if the House remains loyal to its leader Paul Ryan, and to the Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, the two authors of the BAT proposal. However, Trump could derail Ryan's best laid plans. Trump seemed to throw a wrench in the gears when he cast doubt on border adjustment tax, saying that it was too complicated. However, the Trump administration has recently made comments favorable to the BAT. Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, highlighted it as a way to bring manufacturing supply chains back into the U.S. (note the protectionist angle of the comment). Meanwhile Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said it would be a good way to make Mexico pay for the infamous wall to be constructed on the border (again, note that the angle is protectionist and populist, not about balancing the budget).8 In each case, the Trump team has gone to pains to emphasize that the BAT is only one option among many. Yet the fact that they have repeatedly brought it up as a solution to their own populist promises is suggestive. We think Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform.9 Why? Time's a'wastin': Party control of all three branches is a fleeting boon and 2018 mid-term campaigning would make the BAT harder to pass because it could hike the prices of consumer goods. Republicans have a plan ready to go, the House ultimately controls the purse, and Trump wants to move fast on tax cuts and boosting the economy. Furthermore, Republicans remember how short-lived the Democrats' control of Congress was after 2008. Trump wants to be transformative, not merely transactional:10 Trump was elected in a populist revolution and has vowed to improve American manufacturing and trade. His protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT: remove the "tax" on corporate investment to improve U.S. capital stock and productivity, and remove incentives to locate, operate, and stash profits offshore. There is at least some positive correlation between higher VAT rates and positive trade balances, and the law is simultaneously supposed to boost productivity (Charts 9 and 10). Chart 9Higher Investment Helps Productivity Chart 10Some (Not Much) Correlation Between Value-Added Tax Rates And Trade Surpluses Trump needs domestic and international "legitimacy": His protectionist platform will stand on firmer ground if he adopts policy that is at least debatable at the WTO, as opposed to imposing tariffs willy-nilly through bare executive power, which is eventually vulnerable to congressional and judicial oversight. Domestic courts have already shown an inclination to halt Trump's controversial executive orders.11 By contrast, they would almost certainly defer to Congress even on the most radical tax reforms. Trump needs a tradeoff for infrastructure spending: Unpopular presidents cannot set the legislative agenda.12 But Trump may be able to trade GOP-style corporate tax reform - which offsets tax cuts with new revenue provisions, such as the BAT - in return for infrastructure spending, which the GOP is reluctant to embrace. Trump is willing to lead a crusade against the WTO: This may be a necessary prerequisite for the passage of this bill, and Trump is heaven-sent to play the role. He would be to the WTO what George W. Bush was to the United Nations. It would be disastrous for the U.S.-built international liberal order, but it would give Trump the ability to pursue protectionism while rallying the public around the flag against America's "globalist" enemies. (Sovereignty over taxation is a cause that is hard to beat in the U.S.)13 BAT allows Trump to save face on the "Wall" with Mexico: As the White House spokesman hinted, Trump may use creative accounting to satisfy his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Moreover, if Trump comes out in support of the BAT, it will likely get passed: Chart 11Conservatives Agree With Trump Precedent: President John F. Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter's efforts at tax reform failed because Congress was not supportive, which is not a problem today; whereas Ronald Reagan's personal support for the 1986 tax reform - despite his reservations about the attempt to transform the system and broaden the base - proved critical in helping the bill move through Congress.14 Political science: The political context is a better determinant of presidential success than individual talents, and rising political polarization in the U.S. has created an environment in which "majority presidents," those whose party has a majority in Congress, are even more likely to be successful, while "minority presidents" are more likely to fail on key initiatives. The relevant factors of political context are the party's grip on Congress, the extent of polarization, and, somewhat less significantly, whether the president is in his "honeymoon period" and enjoys public support.15 Of these factors, Trump is only weak on public support, though not among conservatives (Chart 11), who could vote their representatives out of office if they defy Trump on tax reform. The Senate could still cause a serious hang-up. But if Trump and the House GOP stand behind the legislation then Senate Republicans would have to be suicidal to oppose it.16 What about the corporate lobbies that oppose the BAT? Certainly it is highly controversial at home. The tax could hurt import-heavy U.S. businesses and punish citizens with a high propensity to consume - i.e. the poor and elderly, both constituents that make up an important part of Trump's base. But that suggests that there will be carve-outs or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel, and clothing. Such compromises will be messy, and will mitigate any dollar appreciation and reduce the tax revenues to be gained, but would probably enable the bill to get passed. The opposition of retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is overrated in terms of their power as a lobby. Importers form a slightly larger lobby than exporters, which makes sense given that the U.S. is a net importing economy, but neither of them comprises a large share of total lobbying (Chart 12). The sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart 13). The opposition of the Koch brothers is also overrated, given their unhelpful attitude toward Trump's candidacy for president! Chart 12'Import Lobby' Not A Giant Lobby Chart 13Cuts In Tax Rates Mitigate A New Import Tax Somewhat Bottom Line: The BAT is a radical plan to spur corporate investment and production in the United States, and that goal matches Trump's vision. Trump will be hard pressed to find a more effective, structural way of achieving his goals. And the two-year window with assured GOP control of government will close faster than one might think. Risks To The View A major risk to the BAT is that Trump will fear the repercussions on his political base of higher consumer prices, as hinted above. Consumer pain is a necessary consequence of his mercantilist vision of rebalancing the U.S. from consumption to investment and bringing down the U.S. trade deficit, so Trump will have to decide whether he means what he says. Moreover, if the dollar rises sharply as a result of the BAT, as expected, it would cause pain for the economy and S&P 500 companies, which source 44% of earnings outside the U.S. According to BCA's Global Investment Strategy, the impact of a much stronger dollar on U.S. assets denominated in foreign currencies could amount to a loss worth of 13% of U.S. GDP! (Not to mention Trump's personal wealth from overseas.) Given the huge uncertainties of a totally new tax system, and potential disruption to the economy, it would be perfectly understandable if Trump refused to hitch his fate as president to this wonkish grand experiment. Further, it is not as if there is no alternative to the BAT. Since Republicans will be humiliated if they fail to deliver on tax cuts, Trump's opposition to the BAT would force the House GOP to go back to good ol' fashioned tax cuts without significant revenue raising measures, and specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions. Trump would still likely get the repatriation of overseas earnings, a political win, and the economy would experience an increase in investment from tax rate cuts without the uncertain consequences of deeper change. Ronald Reagan's administration offers a precedent for this sequencing, since he began his term with simple tax cuts in 1981 and only later attempted the dramatic tax overhaul of 1986. There is also a risk that the business lobby against the BAT proves stronger than expected and gains traction in the media and popular opinion as a result of the feared consequences on consumer prices. Tax reform is never going to be easy and will always hang in a precarious balance. These are serious risks, but we think Trump and the GOP will move now rather than make any assumptions about their ability to win subsequent elections and enact massive tax reform. The fact that the GOP controls all three branches of government, the BAT plan is well in the making, and Trump is looking to reshape the American economy in ways that align with the BAT, make the odds of passage higher than 50%. Unfortunately, this also means the world should brace for a sharp spike in trade disputes. Bottom Line: There are plenty of reasons to think the BAT plan could collapse of its own weight. The path of least resistance is certainly not the BAT. But we think the preponderance of power in GOP hands in Washington favors radical change, even if it ends up being a policy mistake. Investment Implications: Trade War The WTO is supposed to presume innocence with a country's laws, and it might also approve the BAT on the basis that proponents argue: the U.S. imposing the BAT is not much different from a VAT country increasing its VAT rate while simultaneously slashing the payroll tax (as France has done under President Hollande's administration). This view is misguided. The WTO will rule on the statute and international trade treaties, not the special pleading of the advocates. It may or may not accept that the BAT is equivalent to a VAT; it may or may not object to the wage deduction as a holdover from the "direct" tax on income. The GOP has not yet introduced a draft law, but given the express intention - in the Ryan plan, not even to mention Trump - to put "America first" with a "pro-America approach for global competitiveness," it seems likely that a clash of interests is in the making. In other words, American proponents of the tax are not even hiding its overt protectionist intentions. The WTO will probably discover a subsidy for U.S. exporters and a violation of the principle of trade neutrality with respect to imports. WTO litigation will take years. When the European Union sued the U.S. over its use of Foreign Sales Corporations, a comparable dispute, the proceedings began in 1999 and the WTO ruled against the U.S. in 2002. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress amended the law to avoid retaliation in 2004.17 Trump and the GOP would be less likely to amend their pet project in the current environment, especially if the litigant is the EU at the WTO! Trump, as mentioned, would be inclined to take the fight to the WTO - he has even threatened to withdraw the United States from it. His support group feeds on conflict with supra-national bodies and he may see foreign retaliation as a convenient reason to impose tariffs of his own. The trade environment would deteriorate in the meantime. In 2002, it was assumed that the U.S. and EU could work out an agreement without punitive measures, but that assumption does not hold today. And it would not only be the EU leveling complaints. In short, the U.S. would face foreign retaliation, during the proceedings and likely as a consequence of the WTO ruling. The Trump administration would attempt to mitigate the blowback through a series of bilateral deals, and perhaps the U.S. law would ultimately be modified, but the entire saga would have a negative impact on global trade. Financial markets had many factors to contend with during this period (like the dot-com bubble), and they will similarly respond to large currents in the coming years aside from any BAT. Nevertheless, the tax would reinforce our themes of global multipolarity, mercantilism, and protectionism - and thus reinforce several of our existing trades: We continue to favor small caps over large caps. Small caps are insulated from global trade, will benefit most from the cut in tax rates, and will suffer least from any appreciation of the dollar. Long volatility - Long VIX 20-25 call spread for expiration in March; Long USD versus short EM currencies; Short China-exposed S&P stocks; Short German exporters versus long consumer services. If Trump comes out in opposition to the BAT, he would send a bullish signal for markets in the short term. It would mean, first, that the U.S. will have corporate tax cuts without the broader uncertainties of the BAT; and second, that Trump is actually a pragmatist who eschews radical change if he thinks it will cause too much trouble for U.S. consumers or economic growth. However, it would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would avoid a trade conflict, given Trump's executive powers.18 Of course, the BAT's failure - which is not our baseline - would also be worse for the deficit and debt, as the GOP tax cuts would have no offsetting revenue increases but would rely purely on creative accounting, "dynamic scoring," to appear fiscally acceptable. This legislation would also likely fail to simplify the tax code as much as the BAT would. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alan J. Auerbach, "A Modern Corporate Tax," Center for American Progress, dated December 2010, available at www.americanprogress.org. 3 Please see President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, "Final Report," dated November 1, 2005, available at govinfo.library.unt.edu. 4 Please see "A Better Way: Our Vision For A Confident America: Tax," dated June 24, 2016, available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 5 Our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy have recently provided a very helpful Q&A on the border adjustment tax (BAT), and we would refer readers to that report for a detailed discussion. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "Back To 1913?: The Ryan Blueprint And Its Problems," Tax Notes 153: 11 (2016), 1367-47, reprinted by University of Michigan, available at www.repository.law.umich.edu. 7 Amo Houghton, a liberal-leaning Republican from New York, proposed the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002, a bill to streamline IRS administration. It failed in the Republican Congress under President Bush. 8 Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017, available at www.ft.com, and Bob Bryan, "Trump press secretary says the administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall," Business Insider, January 26, 2017, available at www.businessinsider.com. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has also indicated that the BAT is an option but not yet decided upon, see CNBC, "Squawk on the Street," February 3, 2017, available at www.cnbc.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already issued a temporary injunction against President Trump's executive orders on immigration. Please see "State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump," available at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 12 Please see John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner, "Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, For A Little While," Policy Studies Journal 43: 1 (2015), 22-44, available at www.unc.edu. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, and "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 15 Jeffrey E. Cohen, Jon R. Bond, and Richard Fleisher, "Placing Presidential-Congressional Relations In Context: A Comparison Of Barack Obama And His Predecessors," Polity 45:1 (2013), 105-126. 16 The Senate Financial Services Committee's support will be critical. Chairman Orrin Hatch has criticized but not yet declared against the BAT. Even if he does, it would not necessarily kill the deal. One of his predecessors, Senator Bob Packwood, initially opposed the Tax Reform Act in 1986 but was ultimately persuaded to support it. If Hatch and the Finance Committee support the initiative, it will pass the Senate. First, the tax overhaul can be accomplished by "reconciliation," a congressional trick that will enable the GOP to avoid a Senate filibuster and pass the tax reform with a simple majority. Second, the Republicans today have almost exactly the proportion of seats in the Senate as the average in previous examples of successful tax reform (see Table 1). So there would have to be a higher share of Republican defectors than in the past to overturn the bill. This is possible but unlikely if Trump and the House GOP are behind the bill. 17 Please see Congressional Research Service, "A History of the Extraterritorial Income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Export Tax-Benefit Controversy," dated September 22, 2006, available at digital.library.unt.edu. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.