Policy

Dear Client, This is our last report of the year. We will be back the first week of January with our 2017 Strategy Outlook. On behalf of BCA's Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all the best for the coming year. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights The global economy has entered a reflationary window, where deflation risks are receding, but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. Europe and Japan, two regions where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates and whose stock markets tend to have a cyclical tilt, are the most likely to benefit. Emerging markets should also gain from a more reflationary environment. However, a rising dollar and elevated debt levels will take the bloom off the rose. Chronically low productivity and labor force growth will make it difficult for central banks to contain inflation once it does begin to accelerate. Global bond yields will rise only modestly next year, but could begin to surge as the decade wears on. Feature Stagflation Is Coming, But Not Yet Bill Gates once noted that "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." This observation applies just as well to the risk of stagflation as it does to technology. For the next few years, the likelihood of a disorderly rise in inflation is extremely low. Beyond then, however, the risk is that inflation surprises to the upside, perhaps significantly so. Three factors will prevent global inflation from rising too rapidly over the next two-to-three years: The global economy still suffers from a fair amount of spare capacity; While spare capacity is likely to decline further, it will do so only gradually; Even when all remaining spare capacity is exhausted, the knock-on effect to inflation will initially be quite small. Spare Capacity Lingers Chart 1 shows that the global output gap has declined from its high in 2009, but is still larger than it has been at any time since the early 1990s. This can be seen in low industrial capacity utilization rates in some countries (Chart 2), as well as in the high levels of joblessness and involuntary part-time employment (Charts 3 and 4). Chart 1Mind The (Output) Gap Chart 2Global Capacity Utilization Remains Low Chart 3AJoblessness Still Elevated In Europe Chart 3BJoblessness Still Elevated In Europe Chart 4AHigher Incidence Of Involuntary ##br##Part-Time Employment Chart 4BHigher Incidence Of Involuntary ##br##Part-Time Employment Granted, the U.S. is much closer to full employment than most other economies. However, high levels of spare capacity abroad will still exert downward pressure on U.S. inflation. The reason for this was first laid out by Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming in the early 1970s. The Mundell-Fleming model, as it is now called, posits that a country's interest rate will rise in response to stronger growth, thereby pushing up the value of its currency. Indeed, Mundell and Fleming showed that easier fiscal policy would not benefit a small open economy at all in a world of perfect capital mobility and flexible exchange rates because any gains from the stimulus would be entirely offset by a deterioration in the trade balance. Chart 5Real Rate Differentials ##br##Are Driving Up The Dollar While the Mundell-Fleming model is a gross oversimplification of how the global economy actually functions, it is still highly relevant for understanding today's macro environment. The real broad trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 21% since mid-2014, largely due to the widening of interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 5). We estimate that the stronger dollar has reduced the level of U.S. real GDP by 1% so far, and will reduce it by another 0.5% stemming from the lagged effects from the recent dollar rally. The buoyant greenback will keep a lid on U.S. inflation both directly, in the form of lower import prices and indirectly, in the form of slower employment growth. The analysis above leads to three important investment implications. First, it implies that the dollar will remain well bid as long as the Fed remains the only major central bank in hiking mode. We have been long the DXY since October 2014 - a trade that has gained 18.6%. We think there is another 5% of upside from current levels. Second, a stronger dollar will help redistribute growth to Europe and Japan, two economies that desperately need it. We are bullish on European and Japanese stocks and bearish on the euro and the yen. Third, Treasury yields will be hard-pressed to rise substantially from current levels until spare capacity outside the U.S. is extinguished. Only once other central banks start raising rates will the Fed be able to hike rates in a sustainable manner. Until then, any Fed tightening beyond what the market is currently expecting will put upward pressure on the dollar, reducing the need for further hikes. A Gradual Recovery Table 1Global Growth Will Improve Next Year Global growth should pick up next year in line with the IMF's most recent projections (Table 1). Alongside stronger growth in Japan and continued above-trend growth in Europe, the U.S. economy will benefit from robust consumer spending on the back of rising real wages. In addition, residential investment should rise, as foreshadowed by the jump in homebuilder confidence in December. Tighter credit spreads, deregulation, and a modest recovery in energy sector investment should also boost business capex. Despite this welcome reflationary backdrop, a number of factors will hold back growth. Most prominently, debt levels are still high around the world (Chart 6). In fact, emerging market debt continues to rise more quickly than GDP. Even in the optimistic scenario where the ratio of EM debt-to-GDP merely stabilizes, this would still entail a negative credit impulse (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Debt Levels Are Still High Chart 7Negative EM Credit Impulse Looming Meanwhile, monetary policy continues to be constrained by the zero bound in a number of developed economies. Many EM central banks will also be reluctant to cut interest rates due to fears that this could precipitate a disorderly plunge in their currencies. And while fiscal policy around the world will no longer be restrictive, a major burst of government stimulus is not in the cards. Donald Trump's fiscal package may not boost aggregate demand by as much as the more optimistic estimates suggest. As we have noted before, most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance. There simply are not enough marquee "shovel-ready" projects around that can make use of the public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions. There is also a significant risk that Congressional Republicans will try to sneak through cuts to Social Security and Medicare, much to the annoyance of many of Trump's voters. As for Trump's proposed personal tax cuts, while they are hefty in size, their bang for the buck is likely to be modest, given that the benefits are tilted towards higher income groups that tend to save much of their earnings. Indeed, it is possible that cutting the estate tax would actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Likewise, corporate tax cuts will have only an incremental effect on business capex, given that companies are already flush with cash and effective tax rates are well below statutory levels. The bottom line is that global growth is likely to rise in 2017, but not by enough to cause inflation to surge. A Flat Phillips Curve ... For Now Chart 8The Phillips Curve Has Flattened It might take a few more years for most of the developed world to claw its way back to something approximating full employment, but with any luck, it will get there. What happens to inflation then? The answer is probably not much. The relationship between economic slack and inflation is encapsulated by the so-called Phillips curve. As one would intuitively expect, inflation tends to rise when slack diminishes. However, this correlation has weakened over the past few decades (Chart 8). For example, U.S. core inflation declined only modestly during the Great Recession, and has been slow to bounce back, even as the output gap has shrunk. Economists have proposed a variety of reasons for why the Phillips curve may have flattened out over time. Globalization is often cited as one factor, but the empirical evidence for this view is rather shaky.1 True, free trade and capital mobility have helped keep inflation in check by diverting excess domestic demand into higher net imports via the Mundell-Fleming channel discussed above. However, this only implies that globalization may prevent economies from sliding too far along the Phillips curve. It says nothing about the slope of the curve itself. A fall in unionization rates and a decline in the use of inflation-indexed wage contracts are also often cited as reasons for why the correlation between inflation and economic slack has diminished. Here again, the evidence is rather mixed. While the U.S. has experienced a pronounced decline in unionization rates, Canada has not (Chart 9). Nevertheless, the sensitivity of inflation to economic fluctuations has fallen in both countries by roughly the same magnitude. Likewise, the increased use of inflation-index contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a response to rising inflation, rather than a cause of it (Chart 10). The one point on which most economists agree is that long-term inflation expectations are much more stable now than they used to be, which has reduced the volatility of actual inflation. Central banks deserve some of the credit for this. The adoption of inflation targeting, coupled with more transparent communication policies, has helped anchor inflation expectations. A more sober assessment of economic conditions has also been a plus. Back in the 1970s, the Fed continuously overstated the degree of economic slack (Chart 11). This led it to keep interest rates too low for too long, thereby sowing the seeds for much higher inflation later on. Chart 9Inflation Fell In Canada, ##br##Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 10When High Inflation ##br##Entailed Inflation-Indexed Contracts Chart 11The Fed Continuously Overstated ##br##The Magnitude Of Economic Slack Shifting Sands For Inflation The Fed has vowed not to make the same mistake again, but the temptation to exploit the flatness of the Phillips curve may be too great to resist. A flattish Phillips curve implies a low "sacrifice ratio." This means that the Fed could let the economy overheat without putting undue upward pressure on inflation. While the Fed would have reservations about pursuing such a strategy, Janet Yellen's musings about running a "high-pressure economy" suggest that it is at least willing to entertain the idea. The 25-year period of falling inflation that began in the early 1980s had a dark side. As Hyman Minsky first noted, economic stability can beget instability: The so-called "Great Moderation" that policymakers were patting themselves on the back for before the financial crisis created a fertile milieu for rising debt levels. Excessively high debt levels are deflationary at the outset because they limit the ability of overstretched borrowers to spend. However, high debt levels also reduce investment in new capacity - homes, office buildings, machinery, etc. This undermines the supply-side of the economy. Once the output gap is closed, high debt levels can become inflationary by increasing the incentive for central banks to keep rates low in order to suppress interest-servicing costs and reduce real debt burdens. The challenges posed by the zero-bound constraint could also justify efforts to raise inflation targets. After all, if inflation were higher, this would give central banks the ability to push down real rates further into negative territory in the event of an economic downturn. Such a step is unlikely to be taken anytime soon. That said, given that a number of well-regarded economists - including prominent policymakers such as Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the IMF, San Francisco Fed President John Williams, and former Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota - have floated the idea of raising the inflation target, long-term investors should be open-minded about the possibility. In any event, as we discussed in great detail last week, underlying economic trends - ranging from the retreat from globalization to the slowdown in potential GDP growth - are all pushing the global economy in a more inflationary direction.2 This suggests that inflation could move appreciably higher towards the end of this decade. Investment Conclusions Chart 12Near-Term Inflation Risk Is Low Inflation is unlikely to rise significantly over the next few years. Indeed, the sharp appreciation in the dollar since the election will put downward pressure on U.S. inflation in the coming months. This view is supported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Price Pressure gauge, which shows that there is less than an 8% chance that inflation will rise above 2.5% over the next 12 months (Chart 12). And even when the economy has reached full employment and the effects of a stronger dollar have washed through the system, inflation will be slow to increase. Consider how inflation evolved during the 1960s. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, U.S. inflation did not reach 4% until mid-1968. By that time, the output gap had been positive for five years, hitting a whopping 6% of GDP in 1966 on the back of rising military expenditures on the Vietnam War and social spending on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs (Chart 13).3 The lesson is that it often takes a number of years for an overheated economy to generate meaningful inflation. This suggests that the global economy is entering a "goldilocks" reflationary window, where deflation risks are receding, but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. This is obviously good news for global risk assets, and underpins our cyclically constructive view on global equities. Europe and Japan, two regions where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates and whose stock markets tend to have a cyclical tilt, are the most likely to benefit. In fact, both economies have seen a decline in real yields since the U.S. elections, as rising inflation expectations have outpaced the increase in nominal yields (Chart 14). Emerging markets should also gain from a more reflationary environment, but a rising dollar and elevated debt levels will take the bloom off the rose. Chart 13It Can Take A While For Inflation ##br##To Rise In Response To An Overheated Economy Chart 14Europe And Japan: Rising Inflation ##br##Expectations Suppressing Real Yields While we have a positive cyclical (3-to-24 month) view on risk assets, we have significant concerns about both the near-term and longer-term outlooks. From a short-term tactical perspective, developed market equities - especially U.S. equities - are highly vulnerable to a correction. This is reflected in our sentiment indices, which have moved firmly into overbought territory (Chart 15). It can also be seen in the weak historic performance of global stocks following sharp spikes in bond yields (Table 2). Chart 15U.S. Equity Sentiment Is Stretched Table 2Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Over a longer-term horizon, the risks to global equities are also to the downside. Once inflation is on a firm upward trajectory, central banks may find it more difficult to arrest the trend. Against the backdrop of weak productivity and labor force growth, memories of stagflation may reappear. As Chart 16 shows, stagflation in the 1970s was devastating for equities, and this time may not be any different. The bottom line is that investors should lease the bull market in stocks, rather than own it. Chart 16Stagflation Was Devastating For Stocks From The Vault: Two "Big Picture" Holiday Reports Lastly, for those who would like to take their minds off the nitty-gritty of the financial world for the next two weeks and focus more on transcendent issues, let me recommend two special reports. The first, entitled A Smarter World is based on a speech I delivered at the 2014 BCA New York Investment Conference. I argue that genetic changes in the human population sowed the seeds for the Industrial Revolution. This development then unleashed a virtuous cycle where rising living standards led to better health and educational outcomes, generating even further gains in living standards. Many countries now appear to be at the end of this cycle, but new technologies could one day generate huge gains in IQs, sending humanity down a path towards immortality. Of course, before we get there, we have to contend with all sorts of existential pitfalls. With that in mind, the second report, Doomsday Risk, examines what is literally a life-and-death issue: the likelihood of human extinction. Drawing on insights from biology, history, cosmology, and probability theory, our analysis yields a number of surprising investment implications. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Eddie Gerba and Corrado Macchiarelli, "Is Globalization Reducing The Ability Of Central Banks To Control Inflation?" European Parliament, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, Brussels, Belgium (2015); Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, "Some Simple Tests Of The Globalization And Inflation Hypothesis," International Finance Vol. 13, no. 3 (2010): pp. 343-375; and Laurence M. Ball, "Has Globalization Changed Inflation?" NBER Working Paper No. 12687 (2006). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Main Street Bonds, Wall Street Stocks," dated December 16, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits," dated December 16, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature Dear Client, For the last publication of 2016, we have opted to do something a little different. 2016 was a year were political shocks took pre-eminence. Whether we are talking Brexit, Trump, Italian referendum, Japanese upper-house elections, or Rousseff's impeachment; it often felt like economics took the back seat to political events. While this kind of regime shift toward more politically-driven markets can feel jarring, it is not new. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a similar event occurred. Populations in Western democracies - the U.S. and the U.K. in particular - exhausted by a decade of elevated inflation, created one of these shifts by putting Thatcher and Reagan in power. With the benefit of insight, we know how the story ended: with great economic successes in both the U.K. and the U.S. However, when Thatcher and Reagan actually took power, it was far from obvious that Western economies were about to leave stagflation and begin a low inflation boom. Today, we do not know how the Trump experiment will end. It is a similarly radical shift that politician wants to implement. Trump and his team want to beat deflation, especially wage deflation for the middle class. This is easier said than done. While we cannot claim to know how a Trump presidency will unfold, BCA has tried to provide some clarity among the noise by focusing on the implications and risks created by the various policies proposed, as well as the threat to the actual implementation of the policies. To finish the year, we would like to provide our client with some perspective. We are sending you the "Mr X" BCA Outlook published in December 1980, when Reagan was the President-elect. What is striking is that then as today, BCA was trying to make a balanced assessment of the potential for positive or disastrous changes that were about to affect the U.S. and global economy. The worries were very pronounced but ultimately proved to be unfounded. We are not saying that worries regarding Trump's proposed policies are unwarranted, but it is important to remember that investors need to remain very nimble when such shifts are emerging. Ultimately, the final direction and effect of the shifts Trump wants to implement will take years to materialize. Looking at historical reactions to similar political sea-changes is a comforting way to put things into perspective. After all, according to Zhou Enlai, it is still too early to judge the effect of the French Revolution.1 Have a great holiday period and a happy and prosperous new year. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President

Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year, in which we recap some of the key developments in 2016 and their long-term implications. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 5, 2017. The China Investment Strategy team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy Feature Senior Chinese policymakers conveyed in Beijing last week for their annual economic work conference - a high-profile gathering where top officials review the past year's economic performance and set the broad policy tone and development priorities for the coming year. The key messages from this year's meeting suggest that "stability and progress" remain a top priority, but that the importance of a GDP growth target appears less significant. Policymakers recognize the mounting challenges both globally and domestically, which suggests the policy environment will stay accommodative, especially on the fiscal front. Furthermore, the authorities intend to make material progress on "supply-side" reforms, which is both an admission of defeat in terms of progress this year and a pledge for more aggressive efforts going forward. We will be addressing China's policy orientation, growth outlook and asset prices in the New Year. As a year-end tradition, we dedicate this week's report to recapping some important developments of the past year and their long-term implications. A V-Shaped Recovery Under The Economic "New Normal" Chart 1V-Shaped Rebound##br## In The Economic New Normal The Chinese economy entered 2016 with worsening growth deceleration, but ended the year with a V-shaped rebound in industrial activity - even though GDP growth remained curiously stable1 (Chart 1). Destocking in the housing market and de-capacity in some industrial sectors were listed as two top priorities of the government for 2016, both of which were abruptly reversed as the year unfolded: strong home sales depleted housing inventories more quickly than expected, leading to a dramatic increase in home prices in major cities - prompting policymakers to re-impose restrictions on housing demand.2 Meanwhile, de-capacity in steel mills and coal mines greatly constrained domestic supply of related products, leading to both a massive increase in imports and a sharp rally in prices as demand improved. As a result, the authorities scrambled to remove some administrative constraints on domestic production on these two industries. The economy's V-shaped growth performance this year challenges some conventional thinking on China's growth fundamentals, particularly on the housing market and overcapacity. On housing, there is no doubt that some regions have abundant supply, which may take a long time to clear. On an aggregate level, however, the massive increase in home prices in some major cities suggest housing inventories may be much smaller than generally perceived.3 Similarly, overcapacity is widely regarded as a chronic feature of the Chinese economy inherent to its investment-heavy growth model - steelmakers and coalmines being two prime examples. However, the dramatic turnaround in these two industries this past year defies this widely held consensus.4 At minimum, China's overcapacity issue cannot be analyzed in isolation from a global context as well as from the current stage of the business cycle. Chart 2Monetary Conditions And ##br##Business Conditions Furthermore, while "supply-side" reforms were listed as a key theme for 2016, improvement in the industrial sector was to a large extent due to measures that boosted aggregate demand. Fiscal spending remained robust at the beginning of the year, following strong acceleration in 2015. More importantly, monetary conditions began to ease notably from the beginning of the year, leading to a notable improvement in business conditions among industrial enterprises (Chart 2). Nonetheless, the growth "new normal" envisioned by the Chinese leadership underlines the assumption of an "L-shaped" growth trajectory. Therefore, the V-shaped rebound in some key industrial indicators was both surprising and possibly unwelcome from the policymakers' point of view. The authorities will likely continue to switch priorities between supply side reforms and demand-side management going forward. Premature withdrawal of policy stimulus remains a key risk for the economy as well as financial markets. From Deflation To Inflation? 2016 marked a decisive end to Chinese producer price deflation, which lasted for more than four years. PPI, still falling at a 5% annual rate at the beginning of the year, turned up sharply toward the end of 2016, rising by over 3% in November, likely even higher this month. Investors' perception on Chinese producer prices and the broader inflation picture has also shifted dramatically. A mere few months ago China was widely blamed for exporting deflation to the rest of the world, which has quickly been replaced by a consensus that China is now exporting inflation. The sudden shift may have to some extent contributed to the bond market riot of late both globally and within China. The end of PPI deflation is a major positive development for the Chinese corporate sector, as it both improves its pricing power and also reduces its real cost of funding (Chart 3). Real bank lending rates deflated by PPI stayed at close to record highs early this year, and have since tumbled by a whopping 10 percentage points - largely due to easing deflation. This is a dramatic relief for some highly levered asset-heavy industries. Importantly, these industries were the biggest casualties in the growth slowdown and posed material risks to the banking sector due to their high debt levels. In this vein, rising PPI and easing financial stress among these firms also bodes well for the banking sector. Nonetheless, it is wrong to conclude that the end of PPI deflation in China means the country will export inflation going forward: Rising producer price inflation, measured as year-over-year growth, is to some extent due to the base effect. In terms of level, producer prices have clearly stopped falling, but gains have been rather mild and still remain at relatively low levels. It is too soon to worry about inflation (Chart 4, bottom panel). Easing deflation has also been attributable to the falling trade-weighted RMB this year (Chart 4, top panel), as producer prices typically follow exchange rate performance by about six months. While PPI may continue to follow the RMB higher in the coming several months, the trade-weighted RMB depreciation has already stalled, which may cap any additional upside in PPI. Unless the economy continues to recover strongly and/or the RMB resumes its depreciation, it is premature to expect PPI to continue to rise going forward. Chart 3Easing Deflation Helps Reduce##br## Real Interest Rates, Massively Chart 4PPI Inflation##br## In Perspective Domestic inflation does not necessarily lead to rising export prices, if a weaker RMB is the main factor to boost domestic prices (Chart 5). Indeed, rising Chinese domestic producer prices also means Chinese export prices in RMB terms have also been rising. Measured in U.S. dollar terms, however, Chinese export prices are still falling on a year-over-year basis. Similarly, U.S. import prices from China measured in RMB terms have been rising smartly, but in dollar terms are still been falling. This is positive for Chinese exporters' profitability, but is not inflating U.S. prices. Finally, a word on the sharp increase in Chinese bond yields. While growth improvement and easing deflation may have contributed to the sharp rebound in Chinese bond yields in recent weeks, global factors are likely more important. Chart 6 shows Chinese government bond yields have been increasingly synchronized with U.S. Treasurys in recent years, an interesting development considering China's still relatively closed capital markets. The rising correlation could be driven by economic fundamentals due to the tight connection between these two economies. Rising U.S. bond yields reflects changes in growth and inflation expectations in the U.S., which also impact the Chinese economy. Furthermore, the 123-basis-point spike in U.S. Treasurys since July 2016 has narrowed the yield gap with Chinese government bonds, which in turn has pushed up Chinese yields. This means that Chinese interest rates may remain under upward pressure should U.S. Treasury yields continue to grind higher. Chart 5End Of Chinese Deflation Does Not ##br## Necessarily Inflate The World Chart 6Chinese Bonds: ##br##The Global Connection Bottom Line: Easing deflation is good news for Chinese domestic firms, but it does not mean that China is about to export inflation to the rest of the world. Chinese government bond yields may have also made a cyclical low, and will likely continue to move higher along with global yields. The RMB's Bumpy Transition The RMB officially joined the Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket of the IMF in October, a historical moment marking an emerging country being admitted to the "elite currency" club. Joining the SDR helps promote the international status of the Chinese currency, which may offer some longer-term benefits.5 The immediate challenge for policymakers, however, is to fend off the constant downward pressure on the RMB against the dollar. More specifically, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has clearly signaled its intention to allow the exchange rate to float, but has been deeply troubled by the potential of a downward spiral between capital outflows and outsized RMB depreciation. Overall, 2016 marks a tentative transition of the RMB exchange rate mechanism to a dirty float scheme. Indeed, the PBoC at the beginning of 2016 explicitly presented its formula of how the RMB's daily official fixing rate against the dollar is calculated. Strictly following this formula would lead to a largely stable trade-weighted RMB. In reality, however, the PBoC appears to have deliberately targeted a weaker exchange rate: the RMB was soft-pegged to the dollar whenever the dollar weakened against other currencies, and it was allowed to fall against the dollar whenever it strengthened broadly. As a result, the RMB depreciated by almost 10% in trade-weighted terms from its 2015 peak, which in no small part helped the economy reflate. However, this strategy also reinforced an already well-entrenched expectation of the RMB's one-way descent against the greenback. Shorting the RMB became a risk-free bet, which further encouraged capital outflows. There has been a rush to purchase foreign assets by the corporate sector, likely also incentivized by the RMB outlook.6 It is unclear how the PBoC will break this dilemma going forward. We expect the central bank will stay the course in further lowering the trade-weighted RMB, while at the same time tightening capital account controls to prevent capital flight.7 Its large current account surplus and official reserves should offer plenty of resources to maintain control. Its tight grip on the exchange rate may be progressively relaxed as it perceives the trade-weighted RMB to be "cheapened enough," which could generate two-way flows of capital. From this perspective, joining the SDR helps attract long-term foreign capital for Chinese risk-free assets. Bottom Line: Joining the SDR marks a historic milestone for the RMB, but the near-term significance is largely symbolic. The RMB's soft peg to the dollar is over. The PBoC is experimenting with a new exchange rate regime. Market Volatility And Financial Reforms Chart 7Policy Uncertainties And ##br##Equity Valuations The dramatic stock market rollercoaster ride in 2015 had already seriously damaged Chinese policymakers' credibility. The short-lived circuit-breaker system designed to curb market fluctuations in fact greatly exaggerated volatility at the beginning of the year, which further exposed the regulators' incompetency. Global investors' anxiety on China's macro situation has eased notably in recent months. However, Chinese stocks have ended the year largely flat, even though the industrial sector has staged a sharp recovery with strong earnings growth. Perceived high and rising policy uncertainty clearly dampens investors' appetite for Chinese assets, resulting in a large valuation discount to their global peers (Chart 7). Underneath, regulators' apparent policy blunders in the past two years represent a deeper and more systemic challenge than just incompetency. The country's rapidly developing financial system and capital markets have become increasingly complex, while the regulatory system lagged way behind. The current regulatory framework is poorly coordinated with sometimes conflicting priorities, leaving potentially systemically important developments falling through the cracks. The dramatic buildup of leverage in the stock market in 2015 outside of regulatory oversight was a prime example. This year, the leverage situation in commodities and bond markets has also been poorly scrutinized. A key reform initiative for the financial sector under the "reform blueprint" published a few years ago was to improve coordination among different regulators. The authorities plan to enhance supervision on systemically important financial institutions and systemically important financial infrastructure such as payment, clearing and custody systems to improve coordination of macro-prudential measures as well as collaboration on key financial statistics and information - all of which has yet to begin. The dramatic financial market volatility and policy blunders of late have created a pressing need to accelerate the process. In short, preventing financial risks has become an increasingly important priority of the government, and will remain a key task for 2017, as noted from last week's economic work conference. This necessarily involves fundamental reforms of the country's financial regulatory framework. We will follow up on these issues in the New Year. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth, Cyclical Risks And The Rally In Commodities," dated December 1, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Chinese Housing Market Conundrum," dated May 25, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity," dated October 6, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition," dated October 20, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Demystifying China's Foreign Assets," dated December 15, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "How Will China Manage The Impossible Trinity," dated December 8, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Inflation And Interest Rates Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Inflation And Interest Rates Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016

Special Report

Highlights Theme 1: Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics. A larger deficit will cause Treasury yields to rise in 2017 and, for at least a while, it will appear as though secular stagnation has been conquered. Theme 2: A Cyclical Sweet Spot. Better growth and an accommodative Fed will create a sweet spot for risk assets in the first half of 2017. The Treasury curve will bear-steepen early in the year and transition to a bear-flattening only when long-dated TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range. Theme 3: Global Risks Shift From Bond-Bullish To Bond-Bearish. The trade-off between accelerating global growth and a stronger dollar will dictate the pace of next year's rise in Treasury yields. Be on the lookout for bond-bearish surprises from the ECB and BoJ in late 2017. Theme 4: Lingering Policy Uncertainty. Frequent spikes in the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index are likely next year, probably warranting a policy risk premium in asset prices. The composition of the FOMC is another tail risk that bears monitoring. Theme 5: A Pause In The Default Cycle. Recovery in the energy sector will cause the uptrend in the default rate to reverse in 2017, but poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Theme 6: The Muni Credit Cycle Starts To Turn. The municipal credit cycle will take a turn for the worse in 2017, and muni downgrades could start to outpace upgrades later in the year. Theme 7: A Rare Opportunity In Leveraged Loans. The rare combination of rising LIBOR and elevated defaults will cause leveraged loans to outperform fixed-rate junk bonds in 2017. Feature In this Special Report, the last U.S. Bond Strategy report of the year, we present seven major investment themes that will drive U.S. fixed income market performance in 2017. Our regular publication schedule will resume on January 10 with the publication of our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2017. Theme 1: Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics With 2016 almost in the books, it is clear that Treasury returns will likely be close to zero for the year. The total return from the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate index will be only marginally better, in the neighborhood of 1% to 2% (see the Appendix at the end of this report for a detailed summary of U.S. fixed income returns in 2016). But these disappointing returns don't tell the whole story. Up until November 8, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury and Aggregate indexes had returned 4% and 5% year-to-date, respectively (Chart 1). It was only then that the surprise election of Donald Trump caused investors to question many of the assumptions that had driven yields lower during the past several years. As of today, there is not much daylight between the market's expected path of the federal funds rate and the FOMC's own projections (Chart 2). This means that for below-benchmark duration positions to perform well going forward it is no longer sufficient to call for a convergence between the market's rate expectations and the Fed's dots, as we had been doing since July.1 For Treasury yields to rise going forward we must exit the regime of secular stagnation - one that has been characterized by serial downward revisions to the Fed's interest rate forecasts - and enter a new regime where improving global growth and Trumponomics lead to a series of faster-than-expected rate hikes and upward revisions to the Fed's dots. Chart 1Bond Market Returns In 2016 Chart 2Market Almost In Line With Fed What Is Secular Stagnation? For the purposes of the bond market we define secular stagnation based on the observation that in each cycle since 1980 it has required lower real interest rates to achieve the Fed's inflation target (Chart 3). The logical conclusion to be drawn is that the equilibrium real interest rate - the one that is consistent with steady inflation - must be in a secular downtrend. A paper published last year by the Bank of England (BoE),2 and discussed in detail by our own Bank Credit Analyst last February,3 identifies the drivers of this long-run decline in the equilibrium real rate and ranks them in order of importance. Chart 3This Is What Secular Stagnation Looks Like One key finding from the BoE's research is that expectations for lower trend growth account for only 100 bps of the 450 bps decline in global real yields since the mid-1980s. Increases in desired savings and decreases in desired investment for a given level of global growth account for the bulk of the decline (300 bps), while 50 bps of the decline remains unexplained (Table 1). Table 1The Drivers Of Secular Stagnation The most important factors identified in the paper include: Demographics: A lower dependency ratio (the non-working age population relative to the working age population) is associated with an increased desire to save. Inequality: The bulk of income gains during the past 35 years have accrued to the richest tiers of the population, the group that is most inclined to save rather than spend. EM Savings Glut: Since the 1990s many emerging market countries have increased foreign exchange reserves to guard against capital outflows, representing an extra source of demand for safe assets. Falling Capital Goods Prices: The relative price of capital goods has fallen about 30% since the 1980s. This means that less savings are required to undertake the same amount of investment. Less Public Investment: The reluctance of governments to pursue large-scale public investment projects has contributed an additional 20 bps of downside to global real yields. Spread Between Cost of Capital & Risk Free Rate: The expected cost of capital (measured using bank credit spreads, corporate bond spreads and the equity risk premium) has not fallen as much as the risk free rate during the past 30 years. This has made investment less sensitive to changes in the risk-free rate. Is Trumponomics The Solution? Can a Donald Trump presidency actually change any of these long-run factors? It is conceivable that fiscal policies focused on spurring capital investment could enhance the outlook for productivity growth and reverse some of the decline in potential GDP growth expectations. However, lower potential GDP growth expectations have also been driven by slower labor force growth, a trend that fiscal policy is powerless to address. On the plus side, the dependency ratio is likely to bottom in the coming years and the increased infrastructure investment that Trump has promised would certainly put upward pressure on rates. It is also possible that the watering-down of certain regulations might bring the cost of capital more in-line with the risk free rate. However, these potentially positive trends need to be weighed against increasingly isolationist trade and immigration policies that will hamper potential GDP growth, as well as proposed tax cuts that disproportionately target the highest income tiers. The latter will only exacerbate the impact of inequality on real yields. What's The Verdict? With so much uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy it is premature to declare the death of secular stagnation. However, secular stagnation will not be the dominant bond market theme in 2017. Amidst all the uncertainty, one thing that seems likely is that a Trump presidency will result in materially higher deficits next year and consequently more Treasury issuance. Chart 4Big Government Only A##br## Problem For Opposition With one party now in complete control of the Congress it is certain that government spending will increase next year. As our geopolitical strategists have repeatedly pointed out,4 lawmakers are only opposed to higher spending when they are not in power. Survey results show that this is also true of voters (Chart 4). Further, Moody's has estimated a range of outcomes for the federal deficit in 2017 based on how much of Trump's stated campaign agenda is implemented. These estimates range from 4.1% of GDP at the low end to 6% of GDP at the high end. This compares to 3.8% of GDP that was expected under current law.5 The greater supply of Treasury securities next year will offset some of the increased demand stemming from the excess of desired savings relative to investment. This will cause Treasury yields to move higher in 2017 and, for at least a while, it will appear as though the forces of secular stagnation have been conquered. Bottom Line: While Trumponomics will rule in 2017, the forces of secular stagnation are simply dormant and are likely to flare-up again in 2018 and beyond. Theme 2: A Cyclical Sweet Spot In the first half of 2017 the combination of improving economic growth and accommodative monetary policy will create a "sweet spot" for risk assets. The positive environment for risk assets will only end when Fed policy becomes overly restrictive. We expect that restrictive Fed policy will not be an issue until near the end of 2017. Above-Trend Growth Chart 5Contributions To GDP Growth Even prior to the election, U.S. economic growth appeared poised to accelerate in 2017. The main reason being that some of the factors that restrained growth in 2016 are shifting from headwinds to tailwinds (Chart 5). Consumer spending should continue to be a solid contributor to growth next year, just as in 2016. Surveys of consumer sentiment suggest we should even expect a modest acceleration (Chart 5, panel 1). Residential investment actually contributed negatively to real GDP in Q2 and Q3 of 2016 even though leading indicators remained firm. This drag is bound to reverse (Chart 5, panel 2). Government spending contributed almost nothing to growth in 2016 but is poised to accelerate next year based on trends in public sector employment. This does not even take into account the potential for more stimulative fiscal policy in 2017 (Chart 5, panel 3). Inventories were a large negative contributor to growth this year. History suggests that large inventory drawdowns tend to mean-revert fairly quickly (Chart 5, panel 4). Net exports exerted less of a drag on growth in 2016 than 2015 due to moderation in the pace of exchange rate appreciation. With the dollar still in a bull market, net exports will not be a significant driver of growth in 2017 (Chart 5, bottom panel). Nonresidential investment was also a large drag on growth in 2016 and should return to being a small positive contributor next year. First, most of the drag was related to lower capital spending from the energy sector (Chart 6). Now that oil prices have rebounded this drag will abate. Second, surveys of new orders have remained supportive (Chart 7, panel 1) and industrial production growth has rebounded off its lows (Chart 7, panel 2). The rebound in industrial production growth is also likely related to the recovery in energy prices. Chart 6Contribution To Nonresidential Fixed Investment Spending Chart 7Will Capex Return In 2017? The end of the drag from energy alone will be enough to make nonresidential investment a positive contributor to growth next year. The wildcard is that the easier regulatory backdrop under President Trump could unleash the animal spirits of the corporate sector and lead to even larger gains. While this outcome is obviously highly uncertain, there is some evidence that business optimism has already increased. The NFIB small business optimism index shot higher in November (Chart 7, bottom panel) and what's more, the NFIB's Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg noted that "the November index was basically unchanged from October's reading up to the point of the election and then rose dramatically after the results of the election were known." Accommodative Monetary Policy Even with an improving growth outlook we expect the Fed will be slow to react with a faster pace of rate hikes, opting instead to nurture the recovery in inflation and inflation expectations until they are more firmly anchored around its target. With core PCE inflation still running at 1.7% - below the Fed's 2% target - and the 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently at 1.86% - well below the level of 2.4% to 2.5% consistent with the Fed's inflation target - there is no rush for the Fed to send a message that it will move aggressively to snuff out incipient inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Instead, the Fed will continue to send the message that there is no need to be aggressive given the downside risks, and will continue to be sensitive to any negative market response to more restrictive monetary policy. In other words, the "Fed put" is still in place. If risk assets start to sell off due to perceptions of overly restrictive monetary policy, the Fed will be quick to adopt a more dovish posture. The Fed will react in this manner at least until long-dated TIPS breakevens are firmly anchored in the range of 2.4% to 2.5%. It is only at that point that the Fed will be less concerned about negative market reactions to Fed tightening and more concerned with battling inflation. Further, it will take at least until the second half of next year for long-dated TIPS breakevens to return to target. This is because they will be held back by the slow uptrend in actual core inflation. The sensitivity of long-dated TIPS breakevens to core inflation has increased since the financial crisis (Chart 9). We posit that this is due to the zero-lower-bound on the fed funds rate. Prior to the financial crisis, with the fed funds rate well above zero, in the event of a deflationary shock investors would reasonably expect the Fed to offset that shock by easing policy. As such, the deflationary shock had a limited impact on long-dated breakevens. But when the fed funds rate is constrained at the zero-bound, there is reason to question whether the Fed can respond to a deflationary shock as in the past. Given the proximity of the fed funds rate to zero, realized inflation will be a much stronger determinant of long-dated breakevens in the current cycle. Chart 8Inflation Still Needs To Rise Chart 9Recovery In Breakevens Will Moderate Inflation Will Move Higher, But Only Slowly Inflation will continue to march higher in 2017, driven by a tight labor market and upward pressure on wage growth. With the unemployment rate already at 4.6% even modest employment gains can lead to exponential increases in wage growth (Chart 10). However, the pass-through from wage growth to overall price inflation is likely to be muted. Shelter, the largest component of core CPI, is mostly determined by rental vacancies which appear to be stabilizing just as market rents are rolling over. Our model suggests that shelter will not drive inflation higher in 2017 (Chart 11, panel 1). Core goods inflation (25% of core CPI) will also remain very low. This component of inflation is most tightly correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11, panel 2), and so will stay depressed as long as the bull market in the dollar remains intact. Chart 10Wage Growth & Unemployment Chart 11Core Inflation By Component Historically, wage growth is most tightly correlated with service sector inflation excluding shelter and medical care (Chart 11, bottom panel). This component, which accounts for 25% of core CPI, is where we expect the marginal change in inflation will come from. We expect that the current uptrend in core inflation will remain intact next year, but core PCE will not converge with the Fed's 2% target until late-2017. Investment Implications The combination of better economic growth and accommodative Fed policy is a fertile environment for risk assets, and we expect spread product will perform well in the first half of next year. At the moment, however, we advocate only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and an underweight allocation to high-yield based on poor valuation (see Theme 5). Given the positive economic back-drop we will be quick to increase exposure if spreads widen in the near term. Long-dated TIPS breakevens will also continue to widen until they reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed's inflation target. As such, we remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasury yields, even though the uptrend in breakevens is likely to moderate in the months ahead. We will likely downgrade TIPS in 2017, once long-dated breakevens reach our target in the second half of the year. The cyclical sweet spot of better growth and an easy Fed also means that the Treasury curve is likely to bear-steepen in the New Year. Historically, excluding periods when the Fed is cutting rates, the 2/10 Treasury curve tends to steepen when TIPS breakevens rise and flatten when they fall (Chart 12). Further, after last week's Fed meeting the 5-year bullet now looks very cheap on the curve (Chart 13). Chart 12Wider Breakevens Correlated With A Steeper Yield Curve Chart 13The 5-year Bullet Is Cheap On The Curve We expect Treasury curve steepening to persist next year until TIPS breakevens normalize near our target. At that point the bear-steepening curve environment will shift to a bear-flattening one. Investors should buy the 5-year bullet and sell a duration-matched 2/10 barbell to profit from curve steepening in the first half of next year and to take advantage of the cheapness of the 5-year bullet. Bottom Line: The combination of better economic growth and an accommodative Fed will create a sweet spot for risk assets in the first half of 2017. The Treasury curve will bear-steepen and TIPS breakevens will continue to rise. Curve bear-steepening will transition to bear-flattening once long-dated TIPS breakevens level-off in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. Theme 3: Global Risks Shift From Bond-Bullish To Bond-Bearish Alongside secular stagnation, the most important theme driving U.S. bond markets during the past several years has been the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world. We have repeatedly pointed out that these global growth divergences have led to upward pressure on the dollar, and that a strong dollar necessarily limits the amount of monetary tightening that can be achieved through higher interest rates. The strong dollar thus serves as a cap on long-dated Treasury yields. This theme will remain very much intact for most of 2017, but will probably be less potent than in prior years. Our Global LEI diffusion index - a measure of global growth divergences - has moved firmly into positive territory. This makes it unlikely that we will see another dollar appreciation of the scale witnessed in 2014/15 (Chart 14). The fact that the U.S. is still leading the way in terms of growth means the bull market in the dollar will stay in place, but the appreciation will be less potent going forward. Still, from the perspective of Treasury yields, it will be important to monitor the trade-off between accelerating global growth on the one hand and a stronger dollar on the other. One tool we have devised to help guide us in this respect is our 2-factor Global PMI model (Chart 15). This is a model of the 10-year Treasury yield based on global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. A stronger global PMI puts upward pressure on the 10-year Treasury yield while, for a given level of global growth, an increase in bullish sentiment toward the dollar pressures the 10-year yield lower. Chart 14Global Growth Divergences ##br##Less Pronounced Chart 152-Factor Global ##br##PMI Model At present, this model tells us that fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.26%, well below current levels. This is one reason we tactically shifted to a benchmark duration stance on December 6 even though we expect yields to rise next year. Going forward we will continue to use this model to assess whether increasing global growth or a stronger dollar is dominating in terms of the impact on Treasury yields. Chart 16A Bond Bearish Surprise? Through the mechanism described above, the rest of the world will continue to be a bond-bullish force with respect to U.S. Treasury yields for most of 2017. However, near the end of 2017 it is possible that either the Eurozone or Japan could start to exert upward pressure on U.S. Treasury yields. This could occur if it seems likely that either economic bloc is poised to reach its inflation target and the market starts to discount an end to their extremely accommodative monetary policies. We have highlighted the risks of such events in prior reports, in the context of our Tantrum Theory of Global Bond Yields.6 The unemployment rate in the Eurozone is declining rapidly, but has historically needed to break below 9% before core inflation starts to rise (Chart 16, panels 1 & 2). If the current pace of above-trend growth in Europe is sustained throughout 2017 then higher inflation and the end of the European Central Bank's (ECB) asset purchases could become a risk to global bond markets late next year. However, even minor setbacks in growth would be enough to push this risk out to 2018. In Japan, although inflation is still well below the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) target, yen weakness suggests it should begin to rise (Chart 16, bottom panel). While the BoJ has promised to wait until inflation is above target before abandoning its yield curve peg, it is possible that near the end of next year, if inflation is much higher, the market will start to discount the eventual end of the BoJ's policy and cause global bonds to sell off. For now we would characterize these bond-bearish surprises from the BoJ and/or ECB as tail risks for the global bond market that could flare in late 2017. Bottom Line: The trade-off between accelerating global growth and a stronger dollar will dictate the pace of next year's rise in Treasury yields. Be on the lookout for bond-bearish surprises from the ECB and BoJ in late 2017. Theme 4: Lingering Policy Uncertainty With fiscal policy having the potential to drastically alter the economic landscape and yet with so much still unknown about what will occur, lingering policy uncertainty will undoubtedly be a major theme for fixed income markets in 2017. Historically, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis7 has been a reliable gauge of these risks and has also tracked asset prices surprisingly well (Chart 17). Recently, the uncertainty index has spiked and asset prices have not responded in kind. This is likely a signal that the spike in uncertainty will quickly reverse, but it could be a signal that asset prices are overly complacent. At the very least the spike in uncertainty highlights the fact that bond markets have been very quick to discount the potentially positive impacts of a Trump presidency, but are at risk if these policies are not delivered. This lack of a "policy risk premium" in fixed income markets is driven home by the reading from our 3-factor Global PMI model (Chart 18). This model adds the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index to the 2-factor Global PMI model mentioned in the previous section, increasing the explanatory power of the model in the process. At present, the 3-factor model gives a fair value reading of 1.82% for the 10-year Treasury yield. Chart 17Economic Policy Uncertainty & Bond Markets Chart 183-Factor Global PMI Model While the most recent spike in policy uncertainty may reverse before asset prices respond, the volatile nature of the incoming administration means that more frequent spikes of the uncertainty index are likely in 2017. At some point asset prices will probably react. There is another political risk in 2017 that carries extra importance for bond markets. In 2017 President Trump will appoint two new Fed Governors. Also, there is a good chance that Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will not be re-appointed as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively when their terms expire in early 2018. Given the pedigrees of Trump's economic advisors, we would expect the newly appointed Governors in 2017 to have hawkish policy leanings. While this will not significantly alter Fed decision making in 2017, since the core members of the Committee will still be in place, there is a risk that the market will anticipate that one of the newly appointed Governors will be Janet Yellen's eventual replacement. If that Governor is hawkish, then there is a risk that the market will start to discount a much more hawkish Fed reaction function as early as next year. This could potentially speed up the transition from a bear-steepening curve environment to a bear-flattening environment, putting spread product at risk earlier than we currently anticipate. The MBS market would also be at risk in this scenario, since any incoming hawkish Fed Governor would be very likely to favor an unwind of the Fed's balance sheet at a much quicker pace than is currently anticipated. We already recommend an underweight allocation to MBS due to low spread levels and a continued recovery in the housing market that will keep net issuance trending higher. A change of leadership at the Fed represents an additional tail risk. Although we think it is premature to say for certain that Chair Yellen and Vice-Chair Fischer won't be re-appointed in 2018, the key risk for next year is that the market anticipates that they will be replaced. Bottom Line: Frequent spikes in the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index are likely next year, probably warranting a policy risk premium in asset prices. The composition of the FOMC is another tail risk that bears monitoring. Theme 5: A Pause In The Default Cycle The uptrend in the trailing 12-month speculative grade default rate will reverse in 2017, falling from its current 5.6% back closer to 4%. But this will only be a temporary reprieve and the uptrend will resume in 2018 and beyond. Increases in job cut announcements, contractions in corporate profits and tightening C&I lending standards all tend to coincide with a rising default rate (Chart 19). All three of these factors signaled rising defaults last year, but have since rolled over. We have often drawn a comparison between the current default cycle and the default cycles of the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, and this comparison is still apt. Chart 19The Current Default Cycle Is A Hybrid Of the Mid-1980s and Late-1990s Distress in the energy sector caused a contraction in corporate profits and rising defaults in 1986. But then a sharp easing of Fed policy and a recovery in oil prices caused the uptrend in defaults to reverse. Corporate profit contraction, increasing job cut announcements and tighter lending standards also caused the default rate to trend higher in 1998. This time, however, Fed policy remained restrictive (Chart 19, bottom panel) and banks had no incentive to ease lending standards amidst a back-drop of rising corporate leverage. The default rate continued to trend higher in the late 1990s, and did not peak until the next recession. While the energy price shock and subsequent recovery make the current cycle similar to the 1980s episode, the fact that the Fed is more inclined to hike than cut rates brings to mind the late 1990s. This leads us to believe that the recovery in energy prices will cause the default rate to fall next year. This, along with better economic growth and a relatively accommodative Fed, will keep downward pressure on credit spreads throughout most of 2017. However at some point, likely after TIPS breakevens have recovered to pre-crisis levels, the Fed's tone will turn decidedly more hawkish. This will lead to renewed tightening in lending standards, a resumption of the uptrend in defaults and wider corporate spreads. Despite our optimism about the macro outlook for 2017 we cannot forget that corporate balance sheet health continues to deteriorate (Chart 20). Our Corporate Health Monitor has been in 'deteriorating health' territory since 2013, and although corporate spreads have tightened since February they have yet to regain their 2014 lows. Additionally, net leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - defined as outstanding debt less cash on hand as a percent of EBITDA - is still trending higher (Chart 20, bottom panel). The only other period since 1973 when corporate spreads narrowed as net leverage increased was following the oil price crash and default spike of 1986. In that period spreads remained under downward pressure for approximately two years but never regained their prior lows. Spreads also benefitted from Fed rate cuts and a weakening dollar during that timeframe. In our view, the best way to play the corporate bond market in the current cycle is to maintain a cautious long-term bias but to look for attractive opportunities to initiate overweight positions. At the moment, we are actively looking to upgrade our allocation to corporate bonds but need a more attractive entry point first. At 405 bps, the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is only 65 bps above the average level observed in the 2004 to 2006 period when our Corporate Health Monitor was deep in 'improving health' territory. Not surprisingly, the spread appears even lower after adjusting for expected default losses (Chart 21). Chart 20Corporate Balance Sheets Continue To Add Leverage Chart 21Corporate Bond Valuation The default-adjusted high-yield spread is our preferred valuation measure for high-yield and investment grade corporate bonds alike. As is shown in Charts 22 and 23, the current default-adjusted spread of 162 bps is consistent with negative excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield bonds, on average, over a 12-month investment horizon. Chart 2212-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 2312-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) However, this average negative excess return is heavily influenced by a few periods when excess returns were deeply negative. A more detailed examination, shown in Tables 2 & 3, reveals that when the default-adjusted spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps, 12-month excess returns for high-yield have been positive 65% of the time. Investment grade excess returns have been positive only 35% of the time with spreads at current levels, but have been positive 55% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 100 bps and 150 bps. Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Table 312-Month Investment Grade Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Given our optimistic assessment of the macro back-drop, we conclude that excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds are likely to be positive, but very low, during the next 12 months. But we will continue to look for opportunities to upgrade our allocation to spread product from more attractive levels. Bottom Line: The improving macro back-drop means that the default rate will move lower in 2017. However, the poor state of corporate balance sheets means that the default rate will likely resume its uptrend in 2018, once Fed policy turns decidedly more hawkish. Theme 6: The Muni Credit Cycle Starts To Turn Back in October, we published a Special Report 8 wherein we observed that Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios tend to fluctuate in long-run cycles determined by ratings downgrades and net borrowing at the state & local government level. That is, there exists a municipal bond credit cycle much in the same way that there exists a corporate credit cycle. Additionally, we introduced a Municipal Health Monitor - a composite indicator of the health of state & local government finances - to help us assess the stage of the municipal credit cycle and observed that it has tended to follow our Corporate Health Monitor with a lag of approximately two years (Chart 24). Chart 24The Municipal Credit Cycle Lags The Corporate Cycle This analysis leads us to believe that our Municipal Health Monitor will move into 'deteriorating health' territory at some point during 2017 and that municipal bond downgrades could start to outpace upgrades late next year. As such, we adopt a cautious stance with respect to the municipal bond market, not least of which because of the potentially negative impact on the market from a Donald Trump presidency. Lower tax rates next year will certainly undermine the tax advantage of municipal debt, while the potential for increased infrastructure spending could lead to a sizeable increase in municipal bond supply. Historically, most public investment has been financed at the state & local government level, and while Trump's current infrastructure plan relies entirely on incentives for private sector investment, these details could change before any plan is implemented. By far the largest risk to the municipal bond market would be if the municipal tax exemption is done away with entirely in the context of broader tax reform, but this now appears unlikely. Even in the absence of a federal government initiative we would not rule out increased state & local government investment next year. State & local government finances have made substantial progress since the crisis and many states are now in a position where they may start to loosen the purse strings (Chart 25). This poses an upside risk to muni supply in 2017. Of course, we have already seen large fund outflows in response to Trump's election victory. ICI data show that net outflows from municipal bond funds have totaled $14.86 billion since the end of October, and while M/T yield ratios have risen, they remain near the middle of their post-crisis trading ranges (Chart 26). Chart 25Healthy Enough To Invest Chart 26Municipal / Treasury Yield Ratios We will continue to look for opportunities to upgrade municipal bonds when the reading from our tactical Muni model turns more positive (Chart 27). This model- based on policy uncertainty, issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that M/T yield ratios are not yet attractive. This is true even if we assume that last month's spike in policy uncertainty is completely reversed. This model has a strong track record of predicting Muni excess returns since 2010 (Table 4). Chart 27Tactical Muni Model Table 4Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 Bottom Line: The municipal credit cycle will take a turn for the worse in 2017, and muni downgrades could start to outpace upgrades later in the year. Remain underweight for now, but look for near-term tactical buying opportunities in municipal bonds. Theme 7: A Rare Opportunity In Leveraged Loans Chart 28Leveraged Loans Will Outperform In 2017 Our final theme for 2017 relates to the potential for floating rate leveraged loans to outperform fixed rate high-yield bonds. Historically, these periods of outperformance have been few and far between. There have only been two periods since 1991 when loans have outperformed bonds for any length of time (Chart 28). However, we believe that the conditions are in place for loans to outperform fixed-rate junk in 2017. There are two factors that can potentially cause leveraged loans to outperform fixed-rate junk. The first is rising LIBOR, which causes loan coupon payments to reset higher. While there is some concern that LIBOR floors prevent loans from benefitting from higher LIBOR, most loans have LIBOR floors of 75 bps or 100 bps. With 3-month LIBOR already at 99 bps, LIBOR floors will not be a constraint for much longer. The second factor that could cause loans to outperform bonds is an elevated default rate. Since loans are higher-up in the capital structure than bonds, they benefit from higher recovery rates. This matters more in terms of relative performance when the default rate is high. It is highly unusual for elevated defaults and rising LIBOR to coincide. This is because the Fed is typically cutting rates when the default rate is rising. However, next year, much like in the late 1990s, both conditions are likely to be in place. Bottom Line: The rare combination of rising LIBOR and elevated defaults will cause leveraged loans to outperform fixed-rate junk bonds in 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Six Reasons To Tactically Reduce Duration Exposure Now", dated July 19, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Lukasz Rachel & Thomas D. Smith, "Secular Drivers of the Global Real Interest Rate (Staff Working Paper No. 571)", Bank of England, December 2015. 3 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Secular Stagnation And The Medium-Term Outlook For Bonds", dated February 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 Mark Zandi, Chris Lafakis, Dan White and Adam Ozimek, "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr. Trump's Economic Policies", Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 6 Please U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Tantrum Theory Of Global Bond Yields", dated August 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on the construction of this index please see www.policyuncertainty.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix: U.S. Bond Market 2016 Risk/Return Summary Chart A-1U.S. Bond Returns In Historical Context Chart A-22016 Total Returns Versus Volatility Chart A-32016 Vol-Adjusted Total Returns Chart A-42016 Excess Returns Versus Volatility Chart A-52016 Vol-Adjusted Excess Returns Chart A-62016 Corporate Sector Excess Returns Versus Duration-Times-Spread Chart A-7The Performance Of Our Corporate Sector Model In 2016

Highlights Dear Clients, Please note that this will be our final Weekly Report for the year. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 3, 2017. The U.S. Investment Strategy team wishes you a restful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Chart 1Trump + Yellen Recent bond market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market, when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. There are mitigating factors that mean the current bond selloff will not be as violent. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. Even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Feature It was no surprise that the FOMC raised the Fed funds rate by 25bps at last week's meeting. But investors were caught off-guard by the move higher in the Fed's "dot" forecast. Instead of two more hikes next year, the Fed now expects to raise rates three times. Moreover, the Fed inched up its estimate of the terminal interest rate to 3.0% from 2.875%. These revisions to the path of interest rates did not occur with any material changes to the Fed's economic projections. During the post-meeting press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen downplayed the "dot" revisions, by noting that the median projections moved due to changes by only some Fed participants. But despite Yellen's soothing remarks, the financial markets did not interpret the revisions to be minor. The dollar strengthened by nearly 2%, and 10-year bond yields spiked by 20bps (Chart 1). These market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market - when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. Investors will note that in that cycle, the Fed's extended on hold period in 1993 had lulled bond investors into a false sense of complacency; investors were almost completely caught off-guard when tightening began in early February 1994 (Chart 2 and Chart 3). At the end of 1993, the market projected that the 3-month rate, the 10-year and the 30-year yield would be 4.3%, 6.2% and 6.5%, respectively, by the end of 1994. The actual yields at the end of 1994 turned out to be more than 130 basis points higher at 5.6%, 7.8% and 7.85%. From the trough in yields in September 1993 to the peak in November 1994, the Treasury index lost 5%. High-grade spread product, such as Agencies, MBS and investment-grade corporate bonds also suffered losses. The S&P 500 fell by about 9% in early 1994. Economic improvement was the main factor for the re-pricing of the Fed funds rate in 1994 (Chart 4). In the first half of the year, the unemployment rate declined 0.5% (from 6.6% to 6.1%) and monthly average payrolls were above 320,000! As the economy gained self-feeding momentum, the Fed steadily hiked interest rates, causing Treasuries and spread product to buckle. In fact, inflation did not go up but bond yields kept rising and the U.S. economy remained robust. The Mexican financial crisis in late 1994/early 1995, directly stemming from Fed tightening, marked the end of the Treasury bear and Fed restraint. Chart 21993 Complacency, 1994 Panic Chart 3Bond Market Is Still Behind Chart 41994 Economic Acceleration Fueled The Bond Bear All of this bears some resemblance to current conditions, albeit the level of growth today is much lower. Like early 1994, the economy now appears on the cusp of full employment (Chart 5). Most forecasters (including BCA) expect that growth will shift to an above-trend pace for at least a few quarters. And indeed, the debate has already shifted from deflation to the potential for inflation. To be sure, as we wrote last week, it takes a long time to change a prevailing mindset about inflation or deflation and it is unlikely that the Fed will find itself in a position to aggressively tighten against an inflation breakout over the next twelve months. But if GDP growth bucks the pattern of recent years in which first quarter growth disappointed expectations, then bond investors could begin to look for the exits more fervently. What is different this cycle than in 1994? For one thing, the Fed's communication strategy has drastically changed. Since 2012, the Fed has been publishing the "dot plot," a set of FOMC projections for inflation, GDP and the projected policy path. These projections serve as forward guidance about policy intent and in theory, should help smooth out any changes in market participants' expectations about the Fed's policy path and reduce the likelihood of overshoots in expectations. In addition, it seems likely that bonds are now more concentrated in "strong hands." One of the major concerns in 1994 was that retail investors, i.e. the household sector, piled into bonds at precisely the wrong time: throughout the 1980s, bond returns only marginally trailed that of equities and with far less volatility, lulling retail investors into believe bonds couldn't lose them money. Today, according to the BIS,2 around 40% of U.S. Treasuries are owned by the Federal Reserve and the foreign official sector. In addition, the BIS also posits that it is possible that pension funds (the third largest holders of Treasuries) and insurance companies may even benefit from rising rates in the medium term, as a normalized yield environment would allow them to more easily meet promised returns. This composition of ownership, in particular the Fed and foreign official investors - who are non-profit seeking entities, will not be forced to sell into a bear market. Chart 5On The Cusp Of Full Employment True, corporate bonds are now more heavily concentrated in the hands of private investors who seek yield and total return. The prospective price volatility of these securities may be much higher than an entire generation of fixed income investors' experience has taught them to expect. Finally, the U.S. dollar traded sideways from 1990-1993, and fell throughout 1994, which is very different from today. Currently, the policy feedback loop limits the degree to which the Fed can ultimately raise interest rates. This loop has been in place since last year: each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a selloff in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. Overall, there are mitigating factors that suggest that the current bond selloff will not be as violent as 1994. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. As expectations of economic growth improve, a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations will persist. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. We expect that bond selloffs over the next year will happen in fits and starts, as the feedback loop from the bond market and dollar to policy decisions repeats. The move in Treasury yields since mid-November has proceeded too quickly relative to the improvement in economic fundamentals and will pause in the near term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. However, we believe short duration positions will make money on a 2-3 year horizon. How Will Equities Cope? Apart from the 1994 episode, there have been three other major Fed tightening cycles since 1985 (Chart 6). In each case, the 10-year Treasury suffered an almost 10% or more annual loss, either following or just before short-term rates began their ascent. Investors underestimated the pace and extent of rate hikes every time and equity prices also faltered, at least temporarily. This was the case even when the Fed telegraphed a modest and steady 25 basis point-per-meeting pace of rate hikes from 2003 to 2006. The point is that even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Earnings-per-share growth is significantly lower today than in 1993, and the gap between trailing earnings growth and 12-month forward expectations is wide. This suggests that there is a greater risk of earnings disappointment than was the case in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, valuation is poor (Chart 6, bottom panel). Still, we concede that sentiment and technical indicators continue to favor near-term equity gains (Chart 7). Neither our technical nor our intermediate indicator is signalling danger (although both have rolled over). Only our monetary indicator is flashing a warning. The risk is that the longer the uptrend in stocks continues without interruption, the greater the payback will be should economic performance disappoint. Chart 6Fed Re-Entry Is Historically Tough Chart 7An Expensive And Risky Rally Animal Spirits Revival? In our view, the most notable development for the U.S. economy in recent weeks has been the impressive swing in confidence since the election in November. If sustained, the rise in confidence could propel growth to an above-trend pace as "animal spirits" are unleashed. We take this possibility seriously, since depressed confidence in the outlook was an important force capping the upside in growth earlier in the recovery. Nonetheless, this is not our base case, since we continue to believe that it is perilous to focus solely on the positive aspects of Trump's political agenda, while ignoring the more negative ones. This phenomenon seems to be borne out in the NFIB survey data. Although still low relative to past recoveries, optimism among small business owners improved drastically last month, according to the NFIB survey (Chart 8). The improvement was broad-based, showing gain in sales expectations, expansion plans and hiring intentions. But as the NFIB's chief economist pointed out, this surge in optimism is mainly due to businesses reacting favorably to Trump's platform of tax cuts and less regulation. In any case, the recent improvement in consumer confidence has not noticeably translated to improved consumer spending yet. Nominal retail sales eked out a tiny 0.1% m/m gain in November and the October data were revised lower. As we highlighted in a previous report, massive price discounting continues to be a factor pushing down nominal spending. Indeed, despite the potential for an upturn in inflation on the back of unconfirmed Trump policies, the current pricing environment remains tough. Core CPI rose only 0.2% in November, and the annual growth rate - at 2.1% - is lower than at the start of the year. Our diffusion index is below 50, meaning that more sub-components of the CPI are decelerating than accelerating (Chart 9). Chart 8Optimism Returning Chart 9Consumers Are Confident, Will They Spend? The overall message is that economic data continue to display a "two steps forward, one step backward" pattern. We expect growth momentum to gradually build and the economy can grow above trend next year. However, even once the output gap closes, it can take a long time for inflation pressures to build and for inflation expectations to move higher. Ultimately, this dynamic means that the Fed will have the scope to proceed slowly. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 This week's report is greatly inspired by our Special Report, "Reincarnation And Bond Vigilantes," February 5, 2013. 2 "A Paradigm Shift In Markets?," Bank For International Settlements (BIS), December 11, 2016 http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1612a.htm 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 recommended weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral and in line with our benchmark portfolio recommendation for equities. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with some improvements in the momentum and breadth & trend indicators. The monetary component, though less bullish for equities as it continued to weaken somewhat, is still in favorable territory for equities. However, on the cyclical front, the earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as real operating earnings are at a significant distance from positive economic expectations. Earnings momentum has also further deteriorated, based on an earnings diffusion index which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four economic and monetary variables such as oil prices (WTI), ISM Inventories, 10-year Treasury yields and 3-month T-bill rates. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. However the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model have weakened, nearing critical levels which would surrender the preference for Treasuries in the near term. 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.

Special Report

Theme 1 - Returning U.S. Animal Spirits: I Want To Break Free Animal spirits are making a comeback in the U.S. The catalyst for this development is the hope that a Trump administration will alleviate the regulatory burden that has been a source of worry for corporate America (Chart I-1). Feeding this impression has been Trump's anti-regulation rhetoric. His deal-maker, take-no-prisoners persona, along with a cabinet packed with businessmen and corporate scions further solidifies this perception. However, Trump's electoral victory was only the match igniting the fuel. The conditions for a resurgence of animal spirits were already in place. Animal spirits are only a Keynesian metaphor for confidence. From late 2014 to 2016, a 16% contraction in profits weighed on business confidence. However, pre-tax profits have bottomed and are set to continue their acceleration (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Hurdle To Animal Spirits Chart I-2A Drag On CAPEX Vanishing Since profits have bottomed, business capex intentions have picked up steam. As Chart I-3 illustrates, this development not only tends to presage a rise in business investments, it also is a leading indicator of economic activity at large. This rise in capex intentions is not only a reflection of an ebbing contraction in profits. It also indicates that many companies are starting to worry about hitting their capacity constraints if final demand firms up. After having added to their real capital stocks at the slowest pace in decades, U.S. firms are now facing rising sales, a situation that creates a bottleneck (Chart I-4). Chart I-3CAPEX Intentions And Growth Chart I-4Improving Sales Outlook ##br##Meets Supply Constraint Moreover, the labor market is tightening. All the signs are there: at 4.6%, U.S. unemployment is in line with its long-term equilibrium; the number of individuals outside of the labor force is in line with the 1999 to 2007 period, an era where hidden labor-market slack was inexistent; and the difficulty for small businesses to find qualified labor is growing (Chart I-5). As is the case today, companies are not concerned by a lack of demand, but by the quality of labor - a combination pointing to decreasing slack - wage growth tends to accelerate. Coincidentally, this is also an environment in which companies increase their allocation to corporate investments (Chart I-6). A few factors explain why companies are more willing to invest when slack narrows and wages grow. Obviously, rising labor costs incentivize businesses to skew their production function toward capital instead of labor. Additionally, rising wages support household consumption. Capex is a form of derived demand. A stronger household sector leads to more perceived certainty regarding the robustness of the expected final demand faced by corporations. Thus, when the share of wages and salaries in the national income grows, so do investments (Chart I-7). Chart I-5The Labor Market Is Tight Chart I-6When Demand Is Solid And Labor Is Tight... Chart I-7Animal Spirits At Work This means that while we had already expected the consumer to be a key engine of growth next year, we expect the corporate sector to join the fray.1 To us, this combination represents the main reason to expect our Combined Capacity Utilization Gauge to move into "no slack" territory, an environment where the Fed can hike rates durably. Bottom Line: U.S. animal spirits are breaking free. Trump is the catalyst, but conditions for improving business confidence and higher capex have been in place for a period of time. Profits have troughed, capex intentions are on the rise, and capacity constraints are being hit. This will give the Fed plenty of ammo to increase rates in 2017 and 2018. Theme 2 - Monetary Divergences: Pretty Tied Up Monetary policy divergences will continue to be one of the running themes for 2017. As we have argued, the Fed is in a better position to increase interest rates. However, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are firmly pressing on the gas pedal. Last week, the ECB unveiled a new leg to its asset purchase program. True, bond buying will decrease from EUR 80 billion to EUR 60 billion starting April 2017, but the program is now open-ended. Also, the ECB can now buy securities with a maturity of 1-year, as well as securities yielding less than the deposit facility rates. This gives the ECB more flexibility to increase its purchases if need be to placate any potential economic shock in the future. Most crucially, the ECB does not regard its 2019 inflation forecast of 1.7% as in line with its target. Draghi has stressed that this requires the ECB to persist in maintaining its monetary accommodation. This makes sense. While the European economy has surprised to the upside, the recent roll-over in core CPI highlights the continued deflationary forces in the euro area (Chart I-8). These deflationary forces are present because the European output gap remains wide at around 4% of potential GDP.2 While the OECD pegs the Eurozone's natural rate of unemployment at 9%, it is probably lower. Despite a 2.3-percentage-point fall in the Eurozone's unemployment to 9.8% since 2013, euro area wages continue to decelerate, in sharp contrast with the U.S. situation (Chart I-9). This portends to excess capacity in the European labor market. It also limits European household income growth, which has lagged the U.S. by 14% since 2003. (Chart I-9, bottom panel). As a result, European consumption should continue lagging the U.S. Chart I-8Europe's Deflation Problem Chart I-9Signs Of Slack In Europe Additionally, European domestic demand has been supported by a rise in the credit impulse - the change in credit flows (Chart I-10). Between 2011 and 2014, to meet the EBA stress test and Basel III criteria, European banks raised capital and limited asset growth, boosting their capital ratios from 7.1% to more than 11% today. Once this adjustment was over, European banks normalized credit flows, boosting the credit impulse. This process is behind us. To keep the credit impulse in positive territory, credit flows would have to keep on expanding, implying that the stock of credit would have to grow at an ever-accelerating pace. However, the poor performance of European bank equities suggests that credit growth will slow (Chart I-11). While this may be too pessimistic a forecast, it is now unlikely that credit growth will accelerate. As a result, the credit impulse will roll over, hurting domestic demand and keeping deflationary pressures in place. Chart I-10Credit Trends In Europe: Dark Omen Chart I-11Another Dark Omen This should translate into a very easy monetary policy in Europe for 2017 and most likely 2018. European rates, both at the short- and long-end of the curve will not rise as much as U.S. rates. In Japan, economic slack has dissipated and the labor market is at full employment (Chart I-12). The unemployment rate stands at 3% and the job-openings-to-applicants ratio sits at 1991 levels. What has prevented the Japanese output gap from moving into positive territory has been fiscal belt-tightening. Between 2011 and today, the Japanese cyclically-adjusted deficit has fallen from 7.5% to 4.5% of GDP, inflicting a large drag on growth. Going forward, we expect Japan's GDP to actually move above trend. Based on the IMF's forecast, fiscal austerity is behind us, suggesting that the force that has hampered growth is now being lifted. This is a conservative assessment. Abe has sounded increasingly willing to expand the government's deficit following his July upper-house election victory. Japanese military spending should be a key source of stimulus. In 2004, Japan and China both spent US$50 billion in that arena. Today, Japanese defense spending is unchanged but China's has grown to US$200 billion (Chart I-13). Therefore, Japan is ever more exposed to an increasingly assertive China in the region. Moreover, a potential rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia - a country formally still at war with Japan - also increases the need for a more self-sufficient Japanese defense strategy. Chart I-12Little Slack In Japan Chart I-13A Catch Up Is Needed Outside of the fiscal realm, there is cause for tempered optimism regarding Japan. Payroll growth remains strong despite full employment, pointing toward potentially higher wages. Also, the Business Activity Index, machinery orders, and the shipments-to-inventory ratio are all firming. Encapsulating these forces, our model forecasts further improvement in industrial production (Chart I-14). While these would point toward a monetary tightening, such is not the case in Japan. The Japanese central bank has committed to let inflation significantly overshoot before removing any accommodation. Hence, as growth improves, inflation expectations can rise, dampening real rates, depressing the yen, and further supporting growth (Chart I-15). This new BoJ policy is a game changer. Chart I-14Some Glimmer Of Hope Chart I-15The Mechanics Targeted By The BoJ Moreover, this policy becomes supercharged when global bond yields rise, a central view for BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service in 2017.3 Due to their low beta, JGB yields tend to not rise as much as global yields in a bond selloff. With the BoJ targeting near-zero rates at the long-end of the curve, JGB yields have even less upside. Rising global bond yields result in even-wider-than-before global-Japan rate differentials, which hurts the yen. This will stimulate Japanese growth even further, additionally easing monetary policy. Bottom Line: While the U.S. is on the path toward tighter policy, the ECB and the BoJ, by design, are loosening their policy. In Europe, the economy continues to suffer from underlying deflationary forces, forcing the ECB to stand pat for now. In Japan, the BoJ has elected to let inflation overshoot significantly even as the economy strengthens. This is putting downward pressure on Japanese real rates, a de facto further easing of monetary policy. Theme 3 - China And EM Slow-Down: Livin' On A Prayer After a year of respite, in 2017, emerging markets and China will once again be a source of deflationary shocks for the global economy. EM as a whole remains in a structurally precarious position. Since 2008, EM economies have accumulated too much debt and built too much capacity (Chart I-16). Most worrying has been the pace of debt accumulation. In the past five years, debt-to-GDP has risen by 51 percentage points to 146% of GDP. The debt has been backed up with new investments, but such a quick pace of asset accumulation raises the prospects of capital misallocation. When a large economic block like EM spends more than 25% of its GDP for 13 years on investment, the likelihood that many poor investments have been made is high. EM economies show all the hallmarks that capital has been miss-allocated, threatening future debt-servicing capacity. Labor productivity growth has collapsed from 3.5% to 1.5%, despite rising capital-to-labor ratios, while return on equity has collapsed despite surging leverage ratios, a sure sign of falling return on capital (Chart I-17). Chart I-16EM Structural Handicaps Chart I-17Symptoms Of A Malaise With this backdrop in mind, what happened in 2016 is key to understanding potential 2017 developments. Excess debt and excess capacity are deflationary anchors that raise the vulnerability of EM to shocks, both positive and negative. In 2016, the shock was positive. In the second half of 2015 and early 2016, China engaged in large scale fiscal stimulus (Chart I-18). Government spending grew and US$1.2 trillion of public-private infrastructure projects were rolled out in a mere six months. This lifted Chinese imports from their funk, used up some of the EM's excess capacity, dampened EM deflationary forces, and raised EM return on capital for a period. Additionally, faced with volatile markets, Western central banks eased monetary policy. The ECB and BoJ cut rates, and the Fed backed away from its hawkish rhetoric. The resultant falls in DM real rates and the dollar boosted commodity prices, further dampening EM deflationary forces and boosting EM profitability. Capital flows into EM ensued, easing financial conditions there and brightening the economic outlook (Chart I-19). Chart I-18China Fiscal Backdrop: From Good To Bad Chart I-19EM Financial Conditions Are Deteriorating This process is moving into reverse, the positive shock is morphing into a negative one. The structural handicaps plaguing EM have only marginally improved. Precisely because the Chinese industrial sector has regained composure, the already-fading Chinese stimulus will fully move into reverse (Chart I-20). With credit appetite remaining low and interbank rates already rising as the PBoC slows liquidity injections, the Chinese economy should soon rollover. Moreover, the dollar and global real rates are on the rise. Paradoxically, the return of U.S. animal spirits could endanger the EM recovery. As Chart I-21 shows, an upturn in DM leading economic indicators presages a fall EM LEIs. This simply reflects relative liquidity and financials conditions. Chart I-20China: As Good As It Gets Chart I-21DM Hurting EM Strong advanced economies, especially the U.S., lifts DM real rates and the dollar. This process sucks liquidity away from EM and tightens their financial conditions exogenously (Chart I-22). This hurts EM risk assets, currencies, and their economies. Moreover, since trade with the U.S. and other DM economies only account for 15% and 13% of EM exports, respectively, a fall in EM currencies does little to boost growth there. The fall in EM growth to be seen in 2017 will lay bare their structural weaknesses. As a result, EM assets are likely to suffer considerable downside. EM economies will limit the rise in global inflation by exerting downward pressures on globally traded goods prices as well as many commodities. Moreover, with Europe and Japan more exposed to EM growth than the U.S. (Chart I-23), EM weaknesses would further contribute to monetary divergences between the Fed and the ECB/BoJ. Chart I-22Rising DM Rates Equal Falling EM Liquidity Chart I-23U.S. Is The Least Sensitive To EM Bottom Line: 2016 was a great year for EM plays as Chinese fiscal stimulus and easier-than-anticipated DM policy contributed to large inflows of liquidity into EM assets, supporting EM economies in the process. However, as Chinese fiscal stimulus moves into reverse and as DM rates and the dollar are set to continue rising, liquidity and financial conditions in EM will once again deteriorate. Theme 4 - Oil Vs. Metals: Good Times Bad Times From the previous three themes, a logical conclusion would be to aggressively short commodities. After all, a strong dollar, rising rates, and weak EM are a poisonous cocktail for natural resources. However, the picture is more nuanced. In the early 1980s, from 1999 to 2001, and in 2005, commodity prices did rise along with the dollar (Chart I-24). In the early 1980s, the rally in commodities was concentrated outside of the energy complex. The U.S. economy was rebounding from the 1980s double-dip recession, and Japan was in the middle of its economic miracle. Their vigorous growth resulted in a large positive demand shock, boosting Japan's and the U.S.'s share of global copper consumption from 34% to 37%. This undermined any harmful effect on metal prices from a rising dollar. In both the 1999-to-2001 and 2005 episodes, the share of U.S. and Japanese commodity consumption had already fallen. Most crucially, in both episodes, the rise in overall commodity price indexes only reflected strong energy prices. Outside of this complex, natural resource prices were lackluster (Chart I-25). Chart I-24Commodities And ##br##The Dollar Can Rise Together Chart I-25When A Commodity Rally Is An Oil Rally In these two instances, oil prices were able to escape the gravitational pull of a strong dollar because of supply disruptions. In 1999, following an agreement to reduce oil production by OPEC and non-OPEC states, output fell by around 4 million barrels per day, causing the market to re-equilibrate itself. In 2005, as EM growth was already creating a supportive demand backdrop, a devastating hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico curtailed global production by around 1 million bbl/day. Today, the situation is a hybrid of 1999 and 2005. While EM economies are in a much weaker position than in 2005, the U.S. economy is gathering strength. Hence, close to 50% of global oil consumption - U.S. and DM oil demand - will stay firm (Chart I-26). But, most vitally, the supply picture once again dominates. Not only did OPEC agree to a deal to curtail production by 1.2 million bbl/day, but Russia agreed to share the burden, cutting its own output by 300 thousand bbl/day. Shortly after this agreement was reached, Saudi Arabia threw in an olive branch by pledging to further cut its production if necessary to reduce global oil inventories. This means that the oil market will firmly be in deficit in 2017 (Chart I-26, bottom panel). Our Commodity & Energy Service, which forecasted the OPEC move, believes WTI oil prices could occasionally peak toward US$65 /bbl in 2017.4 The picture for metals is more complex. The output of iron and copper continues to grow. On the demand side of the ledger, the U.S. only contributes 4% and 8% of global demand for each metal, respectively. Thus even if Trump were able to implement a large infrastructure program in 2017 - a big if for next year - the effect on global demand would be low. Instead, what matters for metal demand is the outlook for EM in general and China in particular (Chart I-27). On this front, our negative take on China and EM is a big hurdle for metals to overcome. Chart I-26Supportive Oil Back Drop Chart I-27Metals Are About China, Not The U.S. Yet, all is not dark. Metal and oil prices have historically been co-integrated. In fact, during the previous episodes where oil strengthened as the dollar rallied, metals have more or less been flat. This pattern is likely to repeat itself, especially if as we expect, EM experience a growth slowdown and not an outright recession. Altogether, expectations of strong oil prices and flat metal prices suggest that any EM slowdown should be more discriminating than in 2015 and early 2016. Countries like Russia and Colombia should fare better than Brazil or Peru. This reality is also true for DM economies. Canada and Norway are likely to outperform Australia. Bottom Line: Despite a bullish view on the dollar and a negative EM outlook, overall commodity indices are likely to rise in 2017. This move will mostly reflect a rally in oil - the benchmark heavyweight - a market where supply is being voluntarily constrained. The performance of metals is likely to be much more tepid, with prices mostly moving sideways next year. Theme 5 - Dirigisme: Sympathy For The Devil In 2017, a new word will need to enter the lexicon of investors: dirigisme. This was the economic policy of France after the Second World War. Dirigisme does not disavow the key support systems of capitalism: the rule of law, private property, the sacrosanct nature of contracts, or representative governments. Instead, dirigisme is a system of free enterprise where, to a certain degree, the state directs the economy, setting broad guidelines for what is admissible from the corporate sector. Donald Trump fully fits this mold. He wants business to be conducted a certain way and will try his hardest to ensure this will be the case. What will be the path chosen by Trump? Globalization and laissez-faire capitalism have been great friends of corporate profit margins and the richest echelons of U.S. society (Chart I-28). While it has also greatly benefited the EM middle class, the biggest losers under this regime have been the middle class in advanced economies (Chart I-29). As long as U.S. consumers had access to easy credit, the pain of stagnating incomes was easily alleviated. Without easy credit the pain of globalization became more evident. Chart I-28The (Really) Rich Got Richer Chart I-29Globalization: No Friend To DM Middle Class Trump has courted the disaffected middle class. While he is likely to cut regulation, he will also put in place potentially erratic policies that may destabilize markets. The key will be for investors to appreciate his ultimate goal: to boost, even if only temporarily, the income of the American middle class. As such, his bullying of Carrier - the U.S. air-conditioner manufacturer that wanted to shift production to Mexico - is only the opening salvo. Tax policy is likely to move in this direction. A proposed tax reform that would cut tax for exporters or companies moving production back to the U.S. towards 0 - that's zero - and punish importers is already in the pipeline. The implications of such policies on U.S. employment are unclear. While U.S. businesses may repatriate production, they may do so while minimizing the labor component of their operations and maximizing the capital component in their production function. In any case, more production at home will support the domestic economy for a time period. However, the global impact is clearer. These policies are likely to be deflationary for the global economy outside the United States. A switch away from production outside of U.S. jurisdiction will raise non-U.S. output gaps. This should weigh on global wages and globally traded goods prices. Additionally, this deflationary impact will cause global monetary policy to remain easy relative to the U.S., particularly hurting the currencies of nations most exposed to global trade. Compounding this effect, nations that currently export heavily to the U.S. - which will lose competitiveness due to tax policy shifts and/or potential tariffs - are likely to let their currencies fall to regain their lost competitiveness. The currencies of Asian nations, countries that have benefited the most from globalization, are likely to get hit the hardest (Chart I-30). Chart I-30Former Winners Become Losers Under Trump's Dirigisme Moreover, along with a shift toward dirigisme, the U.S.'s geopolitical stance could harden further, a troubling prospect in an increasingly multipolar world. Tensions in East Asia are likely to become a recurrent theme over the next few years. Ultimately, the rise of dirigisme means two things: First, the influence of politics over markets and economic developments will continue to grow. Economics is moving closer to its ancestor: political-economy. Second, while Trump's dirigisme can be understood as a vehicle to implement his populist, pro-middle class policies, they will add an extra dose of uncertainty to the global economy. Volatility is likely to be on a structural upswing. Interestingly, the risk of rising dirigisme is more pronounced in the U.S. and the U.K. than in continental Europe. Not only are economic outcomes more evenly distributed among the general population in the euro area, recent elections in Spain or Austria have seen centrist parties beat the populists. While Italy still represents a risk on this front, the likelihood of a victory by the right-wing Thatcherite reformist Francois Fillon for the French presidential election in May is very high.Germany will remain controlled by a grand coalition after its own 2017 elections.5 Bottom Line: The U.S. economy is moving toward a more state-led model as Trump aims to redress the plight of the U.S. middle class. These policies are likely to prove deflationary for the global economy outside of the U.S. and could support the U.S. dollar over the next 12-18 months. On a longer-term basis, the legacy of this development will be to lift economic and financial market volatility. Theme 6 - Inflation: It's A Long Way To The Top Our final theme for the upcoming year is that the inflationary outcome of a Trump presidency will take time to emerge and inflation is unlikely to become a big risk in 2017. Much ink has been spilled predicting that Trump's promises to inject fiscal stimulus exactly when the economy hits full employment will be a harbinger of elevated inflation. After all, this is exactly the kind of policies put in place in the late 1960s. Back then, due to the Great Society program and the deepening U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, President Johnson increased fiscal stimulus when the output gap was in positive territory. Inflation ensued. This parallel is misleading. True, in the long-term, Trump's fiscal stimulus and dirigisme bent could have stagflationary consequences. However, it could take a few years before the dreaded stagflation emerges. To begin with, the structure of the labor market has changed. Unionization rates have collapsed from 30% of employees in 1960 to 11% today. The accompanying fall in the weight of wages and salaries in national income demonstrates the decline in the power of labor (Chart I-31). Without this power, it is much more difficult for household income to grow as fast as it did in the 1960s and 1970s. Likewise, cost-of-living-adjustment clauses have vanished from U.S. labor contracts. Hence, the key mechanism that fed the vicious inflationary circle between wages and prices is now extinct. Additionally, today, capacity utilization - a series that remains well correlated with secular inflation trend - remains much lower than in the 1960s and 1970s (Chart I-32). This means that one of the key ingredients to generate a sharp tick up in inflation is still missing. Chart I-31Labor: From Giant To Midget Chart I-32Capacity Utilization: Not Johnson Nor Nixon Chart I-33Today's Slack Is Not Where It Once Was Also, when looking at the output gap, the 1960s and 1970s once again paint a markedly different picture versus the present. Today, we are only in the process of closing the output and unemployment gaps. In the 1960s, it took U.S. inflation until mid-1968 to hit 4%. By that time, the output gap had been positive for around 5 years, hitting 6% of GDP in 1966. Unemployment had been below its equilibrium rate since 1963, and by 1968 it was 2.5% below NAIRU (Chart I-33). Together the aforementioned factors suggest that inflation should remain quite benign in 2017. We probably still have a significant amount of time before raising the stagflationary alarm bells. Finally, the Fed currently seems relatively unwilling to stay behind the curve for a prolonged period and let inflation significantly overshoot its target. Wednesday, the Fed surprised markets by forecasting three rate hikes in 2017, resulting in a much more hawkish communique than was anticipated. Therefore, the FOMC's tolerance for a "high pressure" economy now seems much more limited than was assumed by markets not long ago. This further limits the inflationary potential of Trump's stimulus. Instead, it highlights the dollar-bullish nature of the current economic environment. Bottom Line: Trump fiscal stimulus at full employment evokes the inflationary policies of the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, back then it took years of economic overutilization before inflation reared its ugly head. Additionally, the structure of the labor market was much friendlier to inflation back then than it is today. Thus, while Trump's policy may raise inflation in the long term, it will take a prolonged period of time before such effects become evident. Instead, in 2017, inflation should remain well contained, especially as the Fed seems unwilling to remain significantly behind the curve. Investment Implications USD The U.S. dollar is in the midst of a powerful bull market. While the USD is already 10% overvalued, the greenback has historically hit its cyclical zenith when it traded with more than a 20% premium to its long-term fair value. This time should be no exception. Beyond our positive view on households, resurging animal spirits are beginning to support the economy. This combination is likely to prompt the Fed to move toward a more aggressive stance than was expected a few months ago (Chart I-34). With monetary divergences fully alive and backed up by economic fundamentals, interest-rate spreads between the U.S. and the rest of the G10 will only grow wider. Factors like a move toward dirigisme and an absence of blow-out inflation will only feed these trends. Chart I-34Market's Fed Pricing: More Upside Tactically, the dollar is overbought, but clearly momentum has taken over. There is so much uncertainty floating in terms of economic and policy outcomes that evaluating the fair-value path for interest rates and the dollar is an even trickier exercise than normal for investors. This lack of clarity tends to be a fertile ground for momentum trading. Investors are likely to continue to chase the Fed. This process could last until market pricing for 2017 has overshot the Fed's own prognostications. Chart I-35EUR/USD: Technical Picture EUR At this point in time, the euro suffers from two flaws. First, as the anti-dollar, shorting the euro is a liquid way to chase the dollar's strength. Second, monetary divergences are currently in full swing between the ECB and the Fed: the U.S. central bank just increased interest rates and upgraded its rate forecast for 2017; meanwhile, the ECB just eased policy by increasing the total size of its asset purchase program. Investors are in the process of pricing these two trends and EUR/USD has broken down as a result (Chart I-35). The recent breakdown could bring EUR/USD to parity before finding a temporary floor. That being said, a EUR/USD ultimate bottom could still trade substantially below these levels. The U.S. economy is slowly escaping secular stagnation while Europe remains mired in its embrace. The euro is likely to end up playing the role of the growth redistributor between the two. JPY The Bank of Japan has received the gift it wanted. Global bond yields and oil prices are rising. This process is supercharging the potency of its new set of policies. Higher oil prices contribute to lifting inflation expectations, and rising global rates are widening interest-rate differentials between the world and Japan. With the BoJ standing as a guarantor of low Japanese yields, real-rate differentials are surging in favor of USD/JPY. USD/JPY has broken above its 100-week moving average, historically a confirming signal that the bull market has more leg. Additionally, as Chart I-36 shows, USD/JPY is a function of global GDP growth. By virtue of its size, accelerating economic activity in the U.S. will lift average global growth, further hurting the yen. Tactically, USD/JPY is massively overbought but may still move toward 120 before taking a significant pause in its ascent. We were stopped out of our short USD/JPY position. Before re-opening this position, we would want to see a roll-over in momentum as currently, the trend is too strong to stand against. GBP While political developments remain the key immediate driver of the pound, GBP is weathering the dollar's strength better than most other currencies. This is a testament to its incredible cheapness (Chart I-37), suggesting that many negatives have been priced into sterling. Chart I-36USD/JPY: A Play On Global Growth Chart I-37Basement-Bargain Pound For the first half of 2017, the pound will be victim to the beginning of the Brexit negotiations between the EU and the U.K. The EU has an incentive to play hardball, which could weigh on the pound. In aggregate, while the short-term outlook for the pound remains clouded in much uncertainty, the pounds valuations make it an attractive long-term buy against both the USD and EUR. Chart I-38CAD: More Rates Than Oil CAD The Bank of Canada will find it very difficult to increase rates in 2017 or to communicate a rate hike for 2018. The Canadian economy remains mired with excess capacity, massive private-sector debt loads, and a disappointing export performance. This suggests that rate differentials between the U.S. and Canada will continue to point toward a higher USD/CAD (Chart I-38). On the more positive front, our upbeat view on the oil market will dampen some of the negatives affecting the Canadian dollar. Most specifically, with our less positive view on metals, shorting AUD/CAD is still a clean way to express theme 4. AUD & NZD While recent Australian employment numbers have been positive, the tight link between the Australian economy and Asia as well as metals will continue to represent hurdles for the AUD. In fact, the AUD is very affected by theme 3, theme 4, and theme 5. If a move towards dirigisme is a problem for Asia and Asian currencies, the historical link between the latter and the AUD represents a great cyclical risk for the Aussie (Chart I-39). Tactically, the outlook is also murky. A pullback in the USD would be a marginal positive for the AUD. However, if the USD does correct, we have to remember what would be the context: it would be because the recent tightening in U.S. financial conditions is hurting growth prospects, which is not a great outlook for the AUD. Thus, we prefer shorting the AUD on its crosses. We are already short AUD/CAD and tried to go long EUR/AUD. We may revisit this trade in coming weeks. Finally, we have a negative bias against AUD/NZD, reflecting New Zealand's absence of exposure to metals - the commodity group most exposed to EM liquidity conditions, as well as the outperformance of the kiwi economy relative to Australia (Chart I-40). However, on a tactical basis, AUD/NZD is beginning to form a reverse head-and-shoulder pattern supported by rising momentum. Buying this cross as a short-term, uncorrelated bet could be interesting. Chart I-39Dirigisme Is A Problem For The Aussie Chart I-40New Zealand Is Perkier Than Australia NOK & SEK The NOK is potentially the most attractive European currency right now. It is supported by solid valuations, a current account surplus of 5% of GDP and a net international investment position of nearly 200% of GDP. Moreover, Norwegian core inflation stands at 3.3%, which limits any dovish bias from the Norges Bank. Additionally, NOK is exposed to oil prices, making it a play on theme 4. We like to express our positive stance on the NOK by buying it against the EUR or the SEK. The SEK is more complex. It too is cheap and underpinned by a positive current account surplus. Moreover, the inflation weaknesses that have kept the Riksbank on a super dovish bias mostly reflected lower energy prices, a passing phenomenon. However, being a small open economy heavily geared to the global manufacturing cycle, Sweden is very exposed to a pullback from globalization, limiting the attractiveness of the krona. Moreover, the krona is extremely sensitive to the USD. CHF The SNB is keeping its unofficial floor under EUR/CHF in place. Therefore, USD/CHF will continue to be a direct mirror image of EUR/USD. On a longer-term basis, Switzerland net international investment position of 120% of GDP and its current-account surplus of 11% of GDP will continue to lift its fair value (Chart I-41). Hence, once the SNB breaks the floor and lets CHF float - an event we expect to materialize once Swiss inflation and wages move back toward 1% - the CHF could appreciate violently, especially against the euro. Chart I-41The Swiss Balance Of Payment Position Will Support CHF Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a more detailed discussion of the consumer and the dollar, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar: The Great Redistributor", dated October 7, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Marek Jarocinski, and Michele Lenza, "How Large Is The Output Gap In The Euro Area," ECB Research Bulletin 2016, July 1, 2016. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy", dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 For a more detailed discussion of dirigisme, multipolarity, and rising tensions in East Asia, please see Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1 Chart II-2 The Fed hiked rates to 0.75% as expected. The dollar began to rally soon after the updated dot-plot suggested a faster pace of tightening than previously expected. Data from Thursday morning displayed a strengthening labor market, with expectations consistently beaten: Initial Jobless Claims came in at 254 thousand, beating expectations of 255 thousand. Continuing Jobless Claims were recorded at 2.018 million, outperforming by 7 thousand. Additionally, the NY Empire State Manufacturing Index also outperformed expectations of 4, coming in at 9. These figures provided an additional lift to the dollar with the DXY nearing the 103 mark. Report Links: Party Likes It’s 1999 - November 25, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Reaganomics 2.0? - November 11, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3 Chart II-4 The Euro Area's data releases seem to be a mixed bag. Industrial production failed to meet expectations, and even contracted 0.1% on a monthly basis. The Markit Composite PMI remained steady at 53.9, and was in line with expectations, while the Services PMI fell and underperformed expectations, whereas the Manufacturing PMI rose and beat expectations. The increase in the dollar has also forced down Euro, where it has broken the crucial support level of around 1.055, and traded as low as 1.04. Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Despite the recent collapse in the Yen, Japan continues to be plagued by strong deflationary pressures. The BoJ will have no choice but to continue to implement radical monetary measures and thus the yen will continue to fall as some of the data lacks vigor: The decline in machinery orders accelerated to 5.6% YoY, underperforming expectations. Japanese industrial production is also contracting, at a pace of 1.4%. Particularly, most measures in the Tankan Survey (for both manufacturers and non-manufacturers) also underperformed expectations. Report Links: Party Likes It’s 1999 - November 25, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Both the BoE and the market continue to be very bearish on the U.K. economy, causing the pound to be very cheap. However, the cable has remained resilient amid the recent dollar surge, in part because U.K. data, as we have mentioned many times, keeps outperforming expectations. The recent set of data confirms this view: Retail sales ex-fuel grew by 6.6% YoY, beating expectations of 6.1% YoY growth. Average earnings (both including and excluding bonus) also outperformed. Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9 Chart II-10 Australian new motor vehicle sales are still quite weak: They are contracting 0.6% on a monthly basis, albeit at a slower pace from October's 2.4%; On an annual basis, they are now contracting 1.1%. Labor market data was also released, with unemployment increasing to 5.7%. However, the change in employment was better than expected, with 39,100 new total jobs being added to the economy. The Consumer Inflation Expectation measure for December also highlighted an upbeat outlook on inflation, reading at 3.4%, up from 3.2%. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11 Chart II-12 The recent dollar rally has been very damaging for the kiwi, as it has fallen by 3% since the Fed policy decision. Recent data has also been negative: Manufacturing Sales slowed down to 2.1% in Q3 from 2.2% in Q2 (this number was also revised down from 2.8%). Additionally Business PMI slowed down slightly from 55.1 to 54.4. The NZD has also shown weakness in spite of the surge in dairy price, which now stand at their highest point since June 2014. Report Links: 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 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13 Chart II-14 The outlook for Canada's economy remains murky. Although the Financial Stability Report concluded that Canada's financial system remains mostly unchanged from six months ago, the BoC highlighted three key vulnerabilities that remain in the financial system: household debt, for which the debt-to-disposable income is approaching 170%; imbalances in the housing market, where the prices have reached just under 6 times average household income - their highest recorded level; and fragile fixed-income market liquidity. Therefore, underlying weaknesses are apparent and data is reflective of a weak economy. Pressure from a rising dollar will continue to place additional pressure on the CAD going forward. Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15 Chart II-16 The SNB decided to stay put and leave rates unchanged at -0.75%. In addition, the SNB slightly decreased its forecast for inflation for the coming years. However the central bank remains optimistic on the Swiss economy, as improved sentiment in other advanced economies should help the Swiss export sector. Additionally, the labor market remains solid, with only 3.3% of unemployment. Although the franc should continue to mirror the Euro, all these factors will eventually put upward pressure on this currency. Report Links: 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 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17 Chart II-18 The Norges Bank decided to stay put and leave rates at 0.5%. In their Executive Board Assessment the Norges Bank project that rates will remain around their current level in the coming years. They also project that inflation should slowdown given a somewhat slower expected path for growth. However, worries about household debt persist: House prices rose by 11.6% YoY in November, while household debt grew by 6.3%. Additionally household credit is rising faster than household income. Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19 Chart II-20 The Swedish economy has picked up a bit, as annual inflation figures came out at 1.4%, closer to the Riksbank's target. The labor market also displayed resilience as the unemployment rate dropped by 0.2% to 6.2%. Despite the upbeat data, the SEK failed to perform. With the dollar trading at new highs, USD/SEK also reached a new 13-year high, trading above 9.4 for a moment. Additionally, the SEK is trading poorly on its crosses as well, down against most of the G10 currencies. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The FOMC statement was somewhat more hawkish than expected. The Fed is on course to raise rates two to three times next year. Trump's policy views are squarely bearish for bonds, but more mixed for stocks. Investors are focusing too much on the positive aspects of Trump's agenda, while ignoring the glaringly negative ones. The 35-year bond bull market is over. Deep-seated political and economic forces will conspire to lift inflation over the coming years. For now, rising wages and prices are welcome news given that inflation remains below target in most economies. However, with productivity and labor force growth still weak around the world - and likely to stay that way - reflation will eventually morph into stagflation. Feature A Fork In The Road Charlie Wilson, the former CEO of General Motors, once famously declared that "what is good for GM is good for the country." There is little doubt that policies that boost economic growth can benefit both Wall Street and Main Street alike. On occasion, however, what is good for one may not be good for the other. Consider Donald Trump's campaign promise to curb illegal immigration and crack down on firms that move production abroad. Reduced immigration means fewer potential customers, and hence weaker sales growth. Fewer immigrant workers and less outsourcing also means higher wages for native-born workers. Bad news for Wall Street, but arguably good news for Main Street. Chart 1Diminished Labor Market Slack Boosting Wages The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street is critical for thinking about how various policies affect bonds and stocks. Bond prices tend to be more influenced by what happens to the broader economy (the key concern for Main Street), whereas equity prices tend to be more influenced by what happens to corporate earnings (the key concern for Wall Street). Corporate earnings have recovered much more briskly over the past eight years than the overall economy. Thus, it is no surprise that stock prices have surged while bond yields have tumbled. Things may be changing, however. A tighter U.S. labor market is pushing up wages, and this is starting to weigh on corporate profit margins (Chart 1). Meanwhile, bond yields are finally rebounding after hitting record low levels earlier this year. A Somewhat Hawkish Hike This week's FOMC statement reinforced the upward trajectory in yields. Both the median and modal "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections shifted from two to three hikes next year. While Chair Yellen mentioned that a few participants "did incorporate some assumption about the change in fiscal policy," we suspect that many did not, reflecting the lack of clarity about the timing, composition, and magnitude of any fiscal package. As these details are fleshed out, it is probable that both growth and inflation assumptions will be revised up, helping to keep the Fed's tightening bias in place. The key question is whether U.S. growth will be strong enough next year to allow the Fed to keep raising rates. Our view is that it will. As we argued in October in "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen,"1 a recovery in business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, a pick-up in spending at the state and local government level, and continued solid consumption growth driven by rising real wages will all support demand in 2017. Indeed, it is likely that the Fed will find itself a bit behind the curve, allowing inflation to drift higher. The Structural Case For Higher Inflation The cyclical acceleration in U.S. and global inflation that we will see over the next few years will be buttressed by structural trends. As we first spelled out in this year's Q3 Strategy Outlook entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market,"2 a number of political and economic forces will conspire to lift inflation and nominal bond yields over time. Let us start with the politics. Here, three inflationary forces stand out: The retreat from globalization; The rejection of fiscal austerity; The continued will and growing ability of central banks to push up inflation. Globalization Under Attack Globalization is an inherently deflationary force. In a globalized world, if a country experiences an idiosyncratic shock which raises domestic demand, this can be met with more imports rather than higher prices. In addition, the entry of millions of workers from once labor-rich, but capital-poor economies such as China, has depressed the wages of less-skilled workers in developed economies.3 Poorer workers tend to spend a greater share of their incomes than richer workers (Chart 2). To the extent that globalization has exacerbated income inequality, it has also reduced aggregate demand. It is too early to know to what extent Donald Trump will try to roll back globalization. So far, his cabinet appointments - perhaps with the exception of immigration hawk Jeff Sessions - are little different from what a run-of-the-mill Republican like Jeb Bush would have made. Yet, as we noted last week, it will be difficult for Trump to backtrack from his protectionist views because his white working-class base will abandon him if he does.4 As Chart 3 shows, the share of Republican voters who support free trade has plummeted from over half to only one-third. For better or for worse, the Republican Party has become a populist party. Davos Man beware. Chart 2The Rich Save, The Poor Not So Much Chart 3Republican Voters Are Rejecting Free Trade In any case, even if populist pressures do not cause global trade to collapse over the coming years, the period of "hyperglobalization," as Arvind Subramanian has called it, is over. As we discussed three weeks ago,5 many of the things that facilitated globalization over the past 30 years were one-off developments: China cannot join the WTO more than once; tariffs in most developed countries cannot fall much more because they are already close to zero; there is nothing on the horizon that will match the breakthrough productivity gains in global shipping that stemmed from containerization; the global supply chain is already highly efficient, etc. Thus, at the margin, globalization will be less of a deflationary force than it once was. Back To Bread And Circuses After a brief burst of fiscal stimulus following the financial crisis, governments moved quickly to tighten their belts. Now, however, the pendulum is starting to swing back towards easier fiscal policy, as nervous politicians look for ways to thwart the populist backlash (Chart 4). The U.K. is a good example of this emerging trend. Prior to the Brexit vote, the Conservative government had planned to tighten fiscal policy by a further 3.3% of GDP over the remainder of this decade. This goal has been thrown out the window, with Theresa May now even hinting about the prospect of some fiscal stimulus. Elsewhere in Europe, governments continue to flout their fiscal targets. Not only has the European Commission turned a blind eye to this development, but a recent report by the Commission actually suggested that a "desirable fiscal orientation" would entail larger budget deficits next year than what member states are currently targeting (Chart 5). Chart 4The End Of Austerity Chart 5The European Commission Recommends Greater Fiscal Expansion In Japan, Prime Minister Abe has scrapped plans to raise the sales tax next year. The supplementary budget announced in August will boost annual spending by 0.5% of GDP over the next three years. Our geopolitical team thinks that further spending measures will be introduced, especially on defense. For his part, Donald Trump has pledged massive fiscal stimulus consisting of increased infrastructure and defense expenditures, along with a whopping $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years even before accounting for additional interest costs. Investors shouldn't rejoice too much, however. Effective tax rates for S&P 500 companies are already well below statutory levels on account of the numerous loopholes in the tax code (Chart 6). Small businesses rather than large corporations will disproportionately benefit from Trump's tax measures. Chart 6The U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low Moreover, it is doubtful that the maximum fiscal thrust from Trump's policies will be reached before 2018. By that time, the economy is likely to have reached full employment. As such, much of the stimulus is likely to show up in the form of higher wages rather than increased real corporate sales. More Monetary Ammo The global financial crisis set off the biggest deflation scare the world has seen since the Great Depression. Eight years later, central banks are still struggling to raise inflation. The conventional wisdom is that central banks are "out of bullets." This view, however, is much too pessimistic. Even if one excludes the use of such radical measures as helicopter money, it is still the case that traditional monetary policy becomes more effective as spare capacity is reduced. Consider the case of forward guidance. If an economy has a large output gap, a central bank's promise to keep interest rates at zero, even after full employment has been reached, may hold little sway. After all, many things can happen between now and then: A change of central bank leadership, another adverse economic shock, etc. In contrast, if the output gap is already quite small, as is the case in the U.S. today, a promise to let the economy run hot is more likely to be taken seriously. Chart 7 shows that the level of the U.S. core PCE deflator, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, is nearly 4% lower than it would have been if inflation had remained at its 2% target since 2008. Given that the Fed has a symmetric target - meaning that inflation overshoots should be just as common as undershoots - aiming for an inflation rate above 2% over the next few years makes some sense. If inflation does move up to the 2.5%-to-3% range, the Fed might be reluctant to bring it back down since this would require slower growth and higher unemployment. In fact, a case could be made that the Fed and other central banks should simply raise their inflation targets. Both private and public debt levels are still quite elevated all over the world (Chart 8). Higher inflation would be one way to reduce the real value of those liabilities. Chart 7Inflation Has Undershot the Fed's Target Chart 8Elevated Debt Levels The difficulty in pushing nominal short-term rates much below zero is another reason to aim for a higher inflation rate. Back in 1999 when the FOMC first broached the idea of introducing a 2% inflation target, the Fed's simulations suggested that the zero lower bound would only be reached once every 20 years, and even on these rare occurrences, interest rates would be pinned to zero for only four quarters (Table 1). In reality, the U.S. economy has spent more than half of the time since then either at the zero bound or close to it. While we do not expect any central bank to raise their inflation targets anytime soon, long-term investors should nevertheless prepare for this possibility. Table 1The Fed Underestimated The Probability Of Rates Being Stuck At Zero Slow Potential Growth: Deflationary At First, Inflationary Later On The narrowing of output gaps around the world has given central banks more traction over monetary policy. However, there has been a dark side to this development - and one that also leans in the direction of higher inflation. As Chart 9 shows, spare capacity has declined in every major economy not because demand has been strong, but because supply has been weak. Chart 9AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 9BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps The decline in potential GDP growth reflects both slower productivity and labor force growth. As we have discussed in past reports, while cyclical factors have weighed on potential growth, structural factors also loom large.6 The former include falling birth rates, flat-lining labor participation, plateauing educational attainment, and a shift in technological innovation away from business productivity and towards consumer-centric applications such as social media. Chart 10A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Critically, slower potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset but becomes inflationary later on. Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also reduces consumption, as households react to the prospect of slower real wage gains. Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation (Chart 10). One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a period when productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Likewise, a slowdown in labor force growth tends to morph from being deflationary to inflationary over time. When labor force growth slows, two things happen. First, investment demand drops. Why build new factories, office towers, and shopping malls if the number of workers and potential consumers is set to grow more slowly? Second, savings rise, as spending on children declines and a rising share of the workforce moves into its peak saving years (ages 35-to-50). The result is a large excess of savings over investment, which generates downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. As time goes by, the deflationary impact of slower labor force growth tends to recede (Chart 11). Workers who once brought home paychecks start to retire en masse and begin drawing down their accumulated wealth. Since there are few young workers available to take their place, labor shortages emerge. At the same time, health care spending and pension expenditures rise as a larger fraction of the population enters its golden years. The result is less aggregate savings and higher interest rates. Chart 11An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates Japan provides a good example of how this transition might occur. Chart 12 shows that the household savings rate has fallen from over 14% in the early 1990s to only 2% today. Meanwhile, the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 25-year high. Amazingly, the tightening in the labor market has occurred despite anemic GDP growth and a huge surge in female employment. Prime-age female labor participation has already risen above U.S. levels (Chart 13). As participation rates stabilize, labor force growth in Japan will decline from a cyclical high of around 0.8% at present to -0.2%. That may be enough to precipitate a sharp labor shortage, leading to higher wages and an end to deflation. Chart 12Japan: Declining Household Savings ##br## Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Chart 13Japan: Female Labor Force ##br## Participation Now Exceeds The U.S. What will the Bank of Japan do when this fateful day arrives? The answer is probably nothing. The BoJ would welcome a virtuous circle in which rising inflation pushes down real rates, leading to a weaker yen, a stronger stock market, and even higher inflation expectations. Such a virtuous circle almost emerged in 2012 had the Japanese government not short-circuited it by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP. It won't make the same mistake again. Investment Conclusions Global assets have swung wildly in the weeks following the U.S. presidential election. The selloff in bonds and the rally in the dollar make perfect sense to us - indeed, we predicted as much in our September report entitled "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies."7 In contrast, the surge in U.S. equities seems overdone. Yes, certain elements of Trump's political agenda such as deregulation and lower corporate tax rates are good news for stocks. But other aspects such as trade protectionism and tighter immigration controls are not. Others still, such as increased government spending, are good in theory but carry sizeable side-effects, the chief of which is that the stimulus may arrive at a time when the economy no longer needs it. Some commentators have argued that the good aspects of Trump's agenda will be implemented before the bad ones, giving investors a reason to focus on the positive. We are not so sure. If Trump gives the Republican establishment everything it wants on taxes and regulations, he will lose all his remaining leverage over trade and immigration. Rather than waiting to be stabbed in the back by Paul Ryan, strategically, Trump is likely to insist that Congress implement his populist platform before he hands it the keys to the economy. Even if one ignores the political intrigue, it is still the case that global stocks have tended to suffer following major spikes in bond yields such as the one we have just experienced (Table 2). We suspect that this time will not be any different. As such, investors would be wise to adopt a more defensive tactical posture over the next few months. Table 2Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Chart 14Global Growth Is Accelerating Things look better over a one-to-two year cyclical horizon. Outside of the U.S., much of the global economy continues to suffer from excess spare capacity. Recent data suggesting that global growth is accelerating is welcome news in that regard (Chart 14). Not only will stronger growth boost corporate earnings, but with the ECB, BoJ, and many other central banks firmly on hold, any increase in inflation expectations will translate into lower real rates, providing an additional fillip to spending. We continue to prefer European and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts, on a currency-hedged basis. Emerging markets are a tougher call. The real trade-weighted dollar probably has another 5% or so of upside from current levels. Historically, a stronger greenback has been bad news for EM equities. On a more positive note, faster global growth should give some support to commodity prices. BCA's commodity strategists remain quite bullish on crude and natural gas, a view that has been further reinforced by both Saudi Arabia and Russia's announcements to restrict oil supply beginning in January. Still, on balance, we recommend a slightly underweight position in EM equities. Looking beyond the next two years, the outlook for global risk assets is likely to darken again. We are skeptical that Trump's much lauded supply-side policies will boost productivity to any great degree. Against a backdrop of rising budget deficits and brewing populist sentiment around the world, reflation may begin to give way to stagflation. In such an environment, bond yields could rise substantially from current levels, taking stocks down with them. Enjoy it while it lasts. 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 Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "Trade Adjustment: Worker-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2014). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 9, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Slower Potential Growth: Causes And Consequences," dated May 29, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades