Developed Countries
Highlights Fears that the Trump Administration will brow-beat America's trading partners into strengthening their currencies have pushed down the dollar in recent weeks. The likelihood of another Plaza-type accord remains extremely low, however. History suggests that such agreements only work when currency interventions are aligned with the underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. With the Fed eager to hike rates, that is not the case today. The only situation where a multilateral agreement to weaken the dollar could be reached is one where the dollar ascends so high that major financial stresses begin to form, particularly in emerging markets. We are not there yet. The real trade-weighted dollar is likely to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. A stronger greenback will hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. Feature Dollar Under Pressure Chart 1The Recent Dollar Dip Is Not ##br##Reflected In Interest Rate Spreads After rallying sharply following the U.S. presidential election, the greenback has given up some of its gains. Since peaking in late December, the trade-weighted dollar has fallen by around 2.5%. Notably, the dollar's swoon has not been accompanied by a narrowing of 2-year real interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 1). This suggests that shifts in relative growth expectations have played a relatively minor role during this latest dollar selloff. In our view, the more important factor has been the "weak dollar" rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration. Historically, U.S. officials have at least given lip service to America's "strong dollar policy." As with many other political customs, Trump has thrown this one out the window. Peter Navarro, head of Trump's National Trade Council, made headlines last week by calling Germany a "currency manipulator" - even though, strictly speaking, Germany does not have a currency to manipulate. This came on the heels of Trump's comments to The Wall Street Journal earlier in January where he lamented that "our currency is too strong... it's killing us." The President reiterated that sentiment last week, telling a group of pharmaceutical company executives: "You look at what China's doing, you look at what Japan has done over the years ... they play the devaluation market and we sit there like a bunch of dummies." A Deal That Worked The Trump administration's efforts to talk down the dollar have raised the question of whether another Plaza Accord is on the horizon. The original agreement was concluded at The Plaza Hotel in 1985. As fate would have it, Trump ended up buying the landmark property three years later. It would go on to be the setting for such historically momentous events as Trump's wedding to Marla Maples and his Oscar-worthy cameo in Home Alone 2: Lost In New York. The Plaza Accord prescribed that G5 nations - the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., and France - intervene in currency markets with the aim of driving down the value of the dollar. At least in this respect, the Accord was a smashing success. Between early 1985 - when rumors of a deal began to swirl - and January 1987, the dollar fell by 54% against both the yen and the mark, 49% against the franc, and 44% against the pound. In fact, so effective was the Plaza Accord that it necessitated the Louvre Accord two years later, an agreement that was drawn up in order to halt the dollar's slide. Chart 2A Widening Current Account ##br##Deficit Sowed The Seeds For The Plaza Accord Then And Now: Some Similarities... There are some clear similarities between 1985 and the present. Just like today, the greenback strengthened significantly in the years leading up to the Accord. At first, the Reagan administration was content to let the dollar appreciate, seeing this as validation of its pro-growth policies. The Fed was also happy to go along with a stronger dollar since lower import prices helped to dampen inflation. As time wore on, however, the damage from an overvalued dollar became increasingly apparent: The current account balance swung from a modest surplus at the start of the 1980s to a deficit of 2.7% of GDP by the end of 1985 (Chart 2). The Big Three automakers, along with companies such as Caterpillar, IBM, and Motorola, began to lobby the U.S. government for trade sanctions against foreign competitors. With Reagan's appointment of James Baker to the post of Treasury Secretary in February 1985, U.S. trade policy moved away from being governed by a doctrinaire free market philosophy and took on a more pragmatic tone. Fearing further protectionist measures, the Japanese and Europeans agreed to take action to strengthen their currencies. ...But Some Notable Differences Despite the clear parallels between 1985 and the present, there are also a number of critical differences. First, there is the issue of magnitude. By early 1985, the greenback was entering the seventh year of a massive bull market - one that had lifted the real broad trade-weighted dollar up 53% from its lows in October 1978 (Chart 3). In contrast, the current dollar bull market is a mere 2.5 years old and has seen the dollar strengthen by "only" 20% since July 2014. Moreover, the current bull market began from a point where the dollar was highly undervalued. As a consequence, as of today, the real trade-weighted dollar remains 21% below its 1985 peak and 11% below its 2002 peak. Second, one of the reasons the Plaza Accord worked so well was because policymakers ensured that their currency interventions were consistent with the macroeconomic fundamentals. The combination of tight monetary policy and loose fiscal policy created a fertile backdrop for the dollar's ascent in the early 1980s. By 1984, however, those bullish dollar fundamentals started to break down. Chart 4 shows that the dollar continued to appreciate into 1985, even though U.S. interest rates were declining relative to other G5 economies. The dollar, in other words, had entered a full-fledged bubble - one that was ripe for a pricking. Chart 3The Dollar Is ##br##Below Past Peaks Chart 4A Full-Fledged Dollar ##br##Bubble Preceded The Plaza Accord Once the dollar bubble burst, monetary policy amplified the downward pressure on the greenback. Most notably, the Federal Reserve continued cutting interest rates, ultimately taking the effective Fed funds rate down from 11.8% in July 1984 to 5.8% in October 1986. As a result, the 2-year nominal interest rate differential shrank by 454 basis points against Japan over this period. For the U.K., the interest rate differential fell by 630 basis points, while for Germany it declined by 407 basis points. In contrast to the mid-1980s, the Fed is unlikely to lean into dollar weakness this time around. The output gap in the U.S. has been nearly eliminated and the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. This suggests that the Federal Reserve will keep raising rates. We expect the Fed to hike rates three times this year, one more than the market is pricing in. Most other central banks are nowhere near the point where they can start tightening monetary policy. As such, the interest rate differential between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen further. In a world where foreign exchange trading now exceeds $5 trillion per day, any currency intervention - unless it is backed by an underlying shift in the economic fundamentals - is bound to backfire. A Political Reality Check Chart 5China's Weight Matters Political considerations also render another Plaza Accord highly improbable. In the 1980s, West Germany and Japan were politically subservient to the U.S. That is less the case today. China's role in the global economy has also expanded. The RMB now accounts for 22% of the Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar basket, the largest weight of any country (Chart 5). China's government will fiercely resist negotiating any agreement that is not in the country's best interests. The economic circumstances facing most of America's trading partners could also scuttle any hopes for a deal to weaken the dollar. Inflation expectations in Japan have risen over the past six months, but still remain well below the BoJ's 2% target. A stronger yen would undermine efforts to reflate the economy. The German economy is certainly benefiting from an undervalued exchange rate. However, a continued weak currency is necessary for Southern Europe, where unemployment is still very high. Moreover, it is not clear that Germany could stomach a much stronger euro. The German unemployment rate is at a 25-year low, but that is because the country is running a massive 9% of GDP current account surplus. Take away Germany's ability to export its excess savings abroad, and the German economy would look a lot like Japan's. The only scenario in which a new multilateral accord would be seriously entertained is if a rising dollar began to wreak havoc on the global economy. A modestly stronger dollar would boost global growth to the extent that it redistributed demand from the U.S. to economies such as Europe and Japan with greater levels of economic slack. However, if the greenback were to ascend into bubble territory, this could instigate a vicious circle where an appreciating dollar increases the local-currency value of EM dollar-denominated debt, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and defaults, and, in the process, generating even further selling pressure on EM currencies. That said, the dollar would probably need to appreciate by another 15% or so before a crisis occurred. And even if a meltdown seemed imminent, the bar for currency intervention would remain quite high. No emerging market wants to go cap-in-hand to the IMF or the U.S. Treasury. This is particularly true for China, which would likely shun any offers of assistance, even if capital were flooding out of the country. In any case, if a deal were reached, it would likely seek to prevent the dollar from rising further, rather than falling in value. That is a critical distinction. Trump, Trade, And The Fed The discussion above suggests that a new Plaza-style accord is not in the cards, at least not unless the dollar strengthens substantially from current levels. Where does that leave Trump's pledge to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.? We see two possible ways that Trump could try to square this circle. First, Trump could lean on the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative monetary stance. Since inflation expectations are likely to rise further as the economy begins to overheat, it is possible that real rates would actually decline unless the Fed raised rates fast enough, pushing down the dollar in the process. The problem with this theory is that Trump's public pronouncements on monetary policy have generally been on the hawkish side. He criticized Janet Yellen on the campaign trail, accusing her of trying to goose the economy in order to help the Democrats at the polls. Granted, Trump's views on the hard money/easy money debate may have changed now that he is President and poised to benefit politically from a more stimulative monetary policy. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for him to make a complete U-turn on the subject, especially since Congressional Republicans are likely to resist efforts to pack the FOMC with doves. As long as the economy is doing well, our guess is that Trump will accede to Republican demands that he nominate members to the FOMC with a somewhat hawkish disposition. This should keep the dollar uptrend intact. If a policy U-turn does occur, it will happen towards the end of the decade, by which time the economy will be due for another recession. With another presidential election looming at that point, Trump might end up taking a page out of the old Nixon playbook and browbeat the Fed chair into pursuing a massively expansionary monetary policy.1 This could set the stage for a stagflationary episode, a prediction we discussed at length in our latest Strategy Outlook.2 In the meantime, Trump will try to mitigate the effects of a stronger dollar on U.S. manufacturing by pursuing a more protectionist trade agenda. This is likely to entail expanding the use of countervailing duties which target foreign industries that are alleged to be engaging in unfair trade practices - similar to what Obama did when he slapped an extra 35% duty onto Chinese tires in 2009. Trump is also likely to continue "twitter shaming" companies that have moved, or are contemplating moving, production abroad. On the whole, however, a radical departure from existing trade policy is unlikely as long as the economy continues to expand. Nevertheless, as with his approach to Fed policy, Trump could break with all established traditions if unemployment starts rising and his poll numbers begin tumbling. In other words, a major trade war is coming, just not yet. Investment Conclusions Chart 6The Dollar Can Climb Amid ##br##Bullish Sentiment In politics, as in life, preferences are not the only things that matter. Constraints are as important, if not more so. Just as in the early 1980s, the U.S. is pursing a policy of fiscal easing and monetary tightening. As was the case back then, this has led to a stronger dollar. It would be easy to say that Trump could badger other countries into tightening monetary policy in order to keep the dollar from appreciating. Even if we ignore the political implausibility of such a strategy, it still would not work. If a country needs a low interest rate to keep growth from stalling, then raising rates is unlikely to boost that country's currency. The market will realize in short order that the central bank will eventually have to reverse course and cut rates to keep deflationary forces from setting in. The point is that trying to influence exchange rates without changing the economic fundamentals is destined to fail. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. Granted, bullish dollar sentiment is widespread these days (Chart 6). However, dollar bulls were around in even greater numbers in the second half of the 1990s, and this did not prevent the greenback from scaling to new highs. If the dollar resumes its ascent, as we expect, this could hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. A stronger greenback would also weigh on commodity prices, with metals being the most vulnerable. The risks to our dollar view are fairly symmetric. On the downside, the failure of the Trump administration to loosen fiscal policy could prevent the Fed from hiking rates as much as planned. The risk here is not so much that the tax cuts will be scuttled, but rather that Congressional Republicans succeed in pushing through big spending cuts as part of any budget deal. On the upside, the passage of a Border Adjustment Tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - would lift the dollar.3 Rising stress in emerging markets could also push money into safe haven markets such as U.S. Treasurys, similar to what happened during the late 1990s. This could cause the dollar to appreciate more than our baseline forecast implies. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence From The Nixon Tapes," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, no. 4 (2006), pp.177-188. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
The downside of a transitioning to a self-reinforcing economic dynamic is tighter financial conditions. This backdrop poses a challenge for the high-beta biotech group. The top panel of the chart shows that more restrictive monetary settings tend to coincide with biotech underperformance (the shadow Fed funds rate is shown inverted). Higher interest rates boost the discount rate, undermining valuations in the highest multiple market sectors. Similarly, U.S. dollar liquidity drainage - which represents a tightening in global monetary conditions - has historically been an excellent indicator of biotech stock momentum: the current message is also bearish (second panel). On the back of Gilead's recent revenue warning, we expect the biotech bubble to continue to deflate. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction underweight status on the Nasdaq biotech index (ETF ticker: IBB:US).
Highlights Weekly swings in U.S. inventories notwithstanding, we believe global storage is on track to draw ~ 10% by early- to mid-3Q17, which will have achieved the goal of the OPEC - Russia production Agreement negotiated late last year. This will not require an extension of the pact beyond June, based on our modeling. Unexpectedly high compliance by OPEC producers to agreed cuts is being offset somewhat by increased production in those states exempted from the deal. Strong oil consumption on the back of a synchronized global uptick in GDP growth, which started to emerge late last year, provides the impetus for sustained storage draws. Markets are overestimating offshore production's resilience, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, where we see material declines beginning to set in next year. Backwardation likely persists in 2018, absent a U.S. policy-induced USD rally that crimps EM demand and spurs production ex U.S. Energy: Overweight. The return of contango in the WTI forward curve gives us the opportunity to reset our strategic front-to-back position (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) at tonight's close. Our balances assessment supports our view backwardation will return in the deferred part of the curve. Our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread buy stop was elected at $0.07/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, but are keeping a close watch on copper. Unions working at BHP's Escondida mine, the world's largest, are set to strike today. Negotiations resumed this week, following BHP's request for government mediation. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain fundamentals remain unsupportive for a rally. We remain underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Oil Storage On Track For 10% Drop Global oil storage levels remain on track to hit the ~ 10% draw targeted in last year's OPEC - Russia production Agreement by early- to mid-3Q17, weekly gyrations in U.S. inventories notwithstanding. This means an extension of the agreement beyond its June expiry will not be required. Early reports suggest compliance with the deal is unexpectedly high by OPEC states that agreed to cut production by up to 1.2mm b/d - exceeding 80% by various accounts. However, OPEC states not required to cut - Libya, Nigeria, and Iran - have increased production and partially offset those declines, which took total reductions in OPEC output to ~ 840k b/d, based on a Bloomberg tally last week.1 This brought total Cartel compliance to ~ 60% of the agreed cuts, which, as we noted in our 2017 Commodity Outlook in December, would be sufficient to achieve the Agreement's goal of pulling inventories in the OECD down by ~ 10% by 3Q17.2 Non-OPEC producers also appear to be complying with the Agreement. Notable among them is Russia, which is ahead of its commitment with cuts of close to 120k b/d in January, due partly to extreme cold in Siberian fields. We expect cuts in Russia to average 200k b/d in 1Q17, going to 300k b/d in 2Q17. These cuts will allow demand to outstrip supply in 1H17 and into year-end. By early- to mid-3Q17, draws to OECD storage of 300mm bbl can be expected, without extending the OPEC - Russia production agreement (Chart of the Week). We expect to see these cuts show up in OECD inventory data this month and next and continue into the end of 2017. For non-OECD states, the draws will show up in JODI data beginning in March.3 The physical deficits - i.e., supply less than demand - will force storage to draw, backwardating the WTI forward curve later this year (Chart 2).4 If markets are not surprised by a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of a U.S. border-adjustment tax (BAT), or a too-aggressive tightening by the Fed as it seeks to normalize monetary policy, we expect the drawdown in inventories to continue keeping markets backwardated. Even with production returning to pre-Agreement levels in 2H17 in states with the capacity to expand and reliably sustain production - Gulf Arab producers, Russia and U.S. shales - we expect storage to continue to draw through the year and into 2018 (Chart 3). Chart 2We Continue To Expect Backwardation Chart 3Storage Drawdown On Track In 4Q16 the impact of the higher Kuwaiti and UAE output is apparent, along with higher Russian production. This put more crude on the market, which found its way into storage late in 4Q16 and early 1Q17, reversing the trend in draws seen earlier in 2H16. This put the market back in a temporary surplus condition, with the result being more storage will have to be worked off in 1H17 than our earlier estimates indicated. But these draws will occur, following the implementation of the production accord. Extending The KSA - Russia Deal Beyond June Is Unnecessary In our estimates, OPEC crude production increases by ~ 850k b/d in 2H17 versus 1H17 levels. Despite this recovery, the storage drawdown continues. Our modeling assumes Gulf OPEC will account for slightly more than +1mm b/d growth, and non-Gulf OPEC will see production continue to fall by 170k b/d. Russia's total liquids production goes from 10.95mm b/d in 1H17 to 11.34mm b/d in 2H17. We estimate U.S. shale production grows at an average rate of ~ 300k b/d in 2H17, while total U.S. liquids production increases 720k b/d over the same interval. Setting aside the possibility of a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of too-aggressive Fed tightening or a border-adjusted tax becoming the law of the land, both of which would depress demand and raise production ex U.S., we expect the crude-oil market to remain backwardated next year. The globally synchronized upturn in GDP will keep demand robust, with growth coming in close to even with this year's rate of ~ 1.50mm b/d. We have global liquids production and OPEC crude output growing less than 1.0% next year. We believe the market is overestimating the resilience of offshore production next year, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, based on the stout performance put in last year and expected for this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, U.S. production growth since October has almost exclusively been from the Gulf of Mexico's new projects. Output in the Gulf continues to increase due to the lagged effect of final investment decisions made during 2012 - 2014, when WTI prices were consistently trading above $100/bbl. GOM production will peak in 2017 then decline in 2018 due to lack of new investments made since 2014. Indeed, as "increasing decline rates overwhelm a shrinking inventory of new projects, GOM production should peak sometime in 2017 and then start decreasing. The EIA's estimate for another 200,000 b/d increase in GOM production in 2017 seems overly-optimistic."5 Once this becomes apparent to the market, we believe backwardation will reassert itself and persist into 2018. The backwardation of the forward curve structure will affect U.S. shale production economics in 2018. However, our base case is for U.S. shale-oil production in the "Big Four" basins - Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara - to grow 700k b/d next year, given the current structure of the WTI forwards, which were taken higher along with the WTI price rally at the front of the curve. This triggered the revival of rig counts; however, we want to point out that different curve shapes at different price levels produce different expected rig-count responses.6 Chart 4Barring a Policy Shock Demand Will Remain Robust Global Demand Firing On All Cylinders Robust demand growth - ~ +1.50mm b/d in 2017 and 2018 in our modeling - provides the impetus for the continued draws in storage this year and next (Chart 4). We revised our demand estimates for 2015 - 16 in line with the IEA's just-revised assessment of global consumption published in its January 2017 Oil Market Report.7 The IEA brought 2016 oil demand growth up to 1.50mm b/d, in line with our earlier estimates, but significantly revised 2015 demand growth upward to 2.0mm b/d. The Agency expects higher prices to crimp demand this year, taking it to 1.30mm b/d; our estimate, however, is higher, largely on the back of the first global synchronized growth we've seen since the Global Financial Crisis, which will be supported by accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, all else equal.8 Investment Implications Our analysis suggests there will be no need to extend the OPEC - Russia production accord into 2H17. In addition, it reinforces our view markets will backwardate later this year and stay backwardated in 2018, provided we do not see a BAT-induced rally in the USD, or an overly aggressive Fed normalization trajectory. As we noted in previous research, a BAT would lift the value of the USD, which would lower demand ex U.S. and raise supply at the margin.9 We make the odds of a BAT becoming the law of the land in the U.S. this year 50:50, so this is a non-trivial risk. This would be unambiguously bearish for oil prices. While we do not expect oil to be included among the imported commodities subject to a BAT, we do, nonetheless, expect the imposition of a BAT to lift the USD by 10%. This, coupled with the 5% increase in the greenback we'd already penciled in due to the Fed's monetary-policy normalization, will lift the USD 15% if it goes through. Should this occur, we would be preparing for prices to again fall below $50/bbl and push back to the $40/bbl area, which would cause supply and capex to once again contract significantly. That said, we are reinstating our long front-to-back WTI recommendation (long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI), given our updated balances assessment. Our expectation for inventories to continue to draw after the OPEC - Russia production-cutting agreement expires in June supports this recommendation. In addition, if we do see a BAT in the U.S., we believe markets will take the deferred WTI curve significantly lower in expectation of reduced demand and higher marginal supplies that almost surely will ensue in 2018. While the Dec/17 contract also will trade lower, more damage to prices will occur in 2018 contracts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC Cuts Oil Output, But More Work Needed to Fulfill Deal," published by Bloomberg February 2, 2017. Iraq stands out among OPEC producers agreeing to cut, but apparently not following through as diligently as the rest of the Gulf Arab states; we are assuming production of 4.5mm b/d for 1H17, going to 4.6mm b/d in 2H17 for Iraq. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 JODI refers to the Joint Organisations Data Initiative, a supranational producer-consumer oil-market data provider headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4 "Backwardation" describes a forward price curve in which the price for a commodity for prompt delivery (e.g., tomorrow) exceeds the price of a commodity delivered in the future (e.g., next year). It is the opposite of a contango curve structure. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy "Gulf Of Mexico Oil Production Likely To Peak In 2017," dated January 11, 2017, available nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 In next week's report, we will present scenario analysis of shale-oil production as a function of WTI forward curve shape - i.e., the implications of backwardation for shale rig counts. This will update our assessments of price sensitivities to interest rates and USD movements. 7 Please see the IEA's Oil Market Report of 19 January 2017. 8 We discuss this in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy feature article entitled "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Taking A BAT To Commodities," dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights Global competitiveness equalisation occurs: For Germany, at EUR/USD = 1.35 For the Euro area, at EUR/USD = 1.20 For Spain, at EUR/USD = 1.17 For France, at EUR/USD = 1.15 For Italy, at EUR/USD = 1.10 But today EUR/USD = 1.07. The main culprit for the over-competitive euro is the ECB. Feature President Trump is right about one thing. The ECB's own analysis - available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats - shows that the trade-weighted euro needs to appreciate by 10% to cancel the euro area's competitive advantage versus its major trading partners including the United States. To cancel Germany's competitive advantage, the ECB calculates that the euro needs to appreciate by 25% (Chart I-1). Chart I-1ECB Analysis Supports President Trump: ##br##The Euro Is Over-Competitive Even more controversially, the central bank's own analysis shows that the ECB itself is to blame for the euro area's significant competitive advantage. Prior to the ECB's extreme and unprecedented policy easing, the euro area's competitiveness was exactly in line with its trading partners (Chart I-2). The ECB says that it does not target the exchange rate, but it is fully aware that negative interest rates and trillions of euros of asset purchases carry major ramifications for the euro's value. Chart I-2The ECB Caused The Over-Competitive Euro The ECB's Ultra-Looseness Is Counterproductive The ECB could be forgiven for its ultra-looseness if the euro area were on the edge of a deflationary abyss. But as we showed in Fake News In Europe1 euro area inflation and inflation expectations are little different to those in other major economies when compared on an apples for apples basis. Chart I-3Emergency Monetary Policy##br## Not Needed Furthermore, the euro area is among the world's top-performing major economies through the past three years (well before ECB easing started), and the percentage of the working age population in employment is at an all-time high. These are hardly the hallmarks of an imminent deflationary threat which warrants emergency monetary policy (Chart I-3). Perhaps the ECB's ultra-looseness is trying to quell a flare-up of ever-present political risk. If so, the strategy is becoming counterproductive. As well as irking President Trump, the extreme policy is riling Germany's Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who has blamed Mario Draghi for "50 per cent" of the success of the populist right-wing Alternativ Für Deutschland. And by frustrating voters worried about the low interest rates on their hard-earned savings, the ECB is also playing right into the hands of Marine Le Pen's Front Nationale. Admittedly, the euro area's current economic 'mini-upswing' is likely approaching its end. But as we showed last week in Slowdown: How And When?,2 a deceleration is likely to be even more pronounced outside the euro area. Even the ECB acknowledges that "the risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook relate predominantly to global factors" rather than domestic factors. If the ECB is right, the extent of anticipated monetary tightening outside the euro area is overdone. If the ECB is wrong, then the extent of anticipated monetary tightening inside the euro area is underdone (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Either way, the investment conclusion is the same. Chart I-4Expected Divergence In Monetary Policy Drives##br## Relative Bond Market Performance... Chart I-5... And ##br##The Euro Stay underweight German bunds versus U.S. Treasuries. Stay long the euro, with our preferred crosses being euro/pound in the near term and euro/yuan in the long term. And given that euro/pound (inversely) drives relative stock market performance, stay underweight Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100. The Great Currency Manipulation Manipulation: (noun) - the controlling or influencing of a situation cleverly. The creation of the euro in 1999 was arguably the greatest currency manipulation of modern times. To be absolutely clear, this is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. In 1999, when European policymakers killed national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta and replaced them with the new-born euro, the action clearly fitted the dictionary definition of manipulation. Our preceding analysis about the euro area's competitive advantage today assumes that the euro started its life at the right value. The evidence suggests that this assumption is correct. In 1999, the euro area' external trade was in balance, and the bloc's real competitiveness versus its major trading partners was exactly in line with its long-term average. Likewise the evidence suggests that national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta converted to the euro at the right exchange rates. The euro area's constituent economies had much in common in 1999 and were broadly in balance with each other. Surprising as it now seems, in 1999 Germany and Italy scored identically on exports as a share of GDP (Chart I-6) and on total debt as a share of GDP (Chart I-7). And German wages had been rising in lockstep with productivity (Chart I-8). Chart I-6After The Euro, Germany's ##br##Exports Soared Chart I-7After The Euro,##br## Italy's Debt Soared Chart I-8After The Euro, German Wages##br## Lagged Productivity It was only in the decade after 1999 that the euro area developed its major internal imbalances. Germany depressed its wages relative to productivity and used the resulting ultra-competitiveness to build an export-driven business model. In the seven years before 1999, net exports had made zero contribution to Germany's economic growth (Chart I-9), but in the seven years after 1999, net exports accounted for all of Germany's economic growth (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Germany Pre Euro: Net Exports ##br##Contributed Nothing To Growth Chart I-10Germany Post Euro: Net Exports Contributed ##br##Everything To Growth Prior to the one-size-fits-all exchange rate, a rising deutschemark would have largely snuffed out the increased competitiveness from wage depression and thereby thwarted the export-driven business model. However, once locked in the euro, Germany's exchange rate could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off external demand. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain could suddenly rely on a debt-driven business model - especially given that their strong national cultures of homeownership provided the perfect collateral for borrowing. Prior to the one-size-fits-all interest rate, higher domestic interest rates would have thwarted this business model. But once locked in the monetary union, their interest rates could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off borrowing. By 2010, the imbalances had become monsters. Germany, through its wage depression, had become 20% over-competitive versus its major trading partners. Spain and Italy, through their reliance on debt-fuelled growth, had become 20% under-competitive. Understand that this is not a morality tale of good versus bad, as many commentators portray. The mirror-image imbalances were just the opposite sides of the same (euro) coin. Spain Is The Star-Performer Today, the good news is that the euro area's internal imbalances have narrowed sharply, as the under-competitive economies have taken draconian corrective measures. External competitiveness has also been boosted by a substantially weaker euro. The bad news is that Germany's over-competitiveness versus the world remains excessive. But as Wolfgang Schäuble correctly argues, it is extremely difficult for Germany to rebalance its global competitiveness when it is swimming against the tide of the ECB's extreme easing and resulting depression of the euro. The award for the most spectacular rebalancing goes to Spain. Eight years ago, Spain was 15% less competitive than France on the ECB's harmonised competitiveness indicator based on unit labour costs. Today, on the same measure Spain is 2% more competitive than France. This makes it very difficult to justify any yield premium on Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. The yield premium is a compensation for perceived redenomination risk. The expected annual loss of owning a Bono versus an OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. But if Spain is now as competitive as France, a new peseta ultimately should be as valuable as a new franc. The second item of the multiplication would be zero (Chart I-11). So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the yield premium should also be zero. Yet today, Spanish 10-year Bonos are still trading at a substantial 65 bps yield premium over French 10-year OATs (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Spain Is As Competitive ##br##As France... Chart I-12... Bonos Should Not Have A ##br##Yield Premium Over OATs Stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on January 26, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Published on February 2, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* A tactically short position in equities is warranted. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The U.S. Border Adjustment Tax is likely to pass; Yet the political pieces are not in place; Trump himself will be the decisive factor; Trade retaliation would detract from trade benefits of the tax; Stay long volatility; small caps versus large caps; and long USD versus EM currencies. Remain short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks, and German exporters versus consumer services. Feature Donald Trump is a trend-setter. After winning the U.S. election on a protectionist platform that played well to voters in the Midwest, Trump has established an anti-globalization brand of politics. His success has revealed the preferences of the American "median voter."1 Other U.S. politicians are taking notice. The "Border Adjustment Tax" (BAT) is part of this new political trend, though it did not originate with Trump. The House GOP leadership has presented it as a response to economic dislocation in the American heartland, which propelled Trump to the White House. Is it protectionism? Yes, and in this analysis we explain why. The rest of the world is highly unlikely to treat the BAT as a standard Value Added Tax (VAT). It will therefore spark trade retaliation unless Congress addresses outstanding issues. So far President Trump is on the fence, and his support is necessary for passage. We think he will ultimately go with the proposal. The prospect of turning the tables on the U.S.'s trade partners, while spurring domestic investment and capital spending, speaks to his core promises to his voters. Trump's support for the plan should be read as a headwind for markets in the short term due to the uncertainties of implementation and trade disputes. If he should oppose the plan, it would be bullish for U.S. stocks in the short term, since it would mean cutting the corporate tax without radically altering the global status quo. It would signal that he is more interested in economic growth and corporate profits than changing the world or balancing the U.S. budget. Why Reform The Corporate Tax System? American policymakers have long struggled with the country's corporate income tax system. Leaving aside party politics, there are three main complaints:2 Corporate tax revenues are weak: Revenues have disappointed as companies have shifted profits to tax havens and used deductions and loopholes to avoid paying the 35% statutory rate. This erosion of the tax base has contributed to budget deficits as well as public dissatisfaction with governing institutions (Chart 1). U.S. companies have lost competitiveness: American businesses are overtaxed relative to their developed-market peers, taking a toll on competitiveness both at home and abroad (Chart 2). The middle class is losing out: U.S. workers are not as well compensated as their developed-market peers and have lost their share of American wealth in recent decades (Chart 3). The corporate tax contributes to this because companies foist the tax onto workers. Chart 1Over-Taxation Is In##br## The Eye Of The Beholder Chart 2U.S. Competitiveness##br## Has Suffered Chart 3Labor Suffers From##br## High Corporate Tax Rates The Republican Party examined fundamental tax reform in 2005 but could not make progress on it - instead it settled for the Bush tax cuts, which focused primarily on cutting household tax rates.3 Now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government again, its leaders are attempting broad tax reform anew. The GOP is primarily concerned with corporate competitiveness, but they also need to appease the middle class - the source of the populist angst that supported both Obama and Trump (the former being the Republicans' arch-nemesis, the latter a strange bedfellow). The GOP also wants to raise some revenue to make their desired tax rate cuts "revenue neutral," i.e. somewhat fiscally defensible, at least enough to pass the bill. Enter Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and their "Better Way" tax plan, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system.4 The core idea is to pay for tax cuts by transforming the current corporate income tax system into a "destination-based cash-flow tax" (DBCFT) with border adjustability ("border adjustment tax" or BAT for short).5 We will get to the definition of that, but first, what is the ultimate point? The plan would purportedly drive corporate investment and economic growth by allowing companies to write off the expense of new investments immediately, the first year, rather than gradually through depreciation. (Depreciation schedules often mean that the tax write-off barely covers the cost of investment, thereby causing companies to err on the side of risk-aversion.) The plan would also remove the preferential treatment of corporate debt over equity, which is built into the current tax code through the deduction of interest - this change would discourage corporate indebtedness and encourage equity financing. Finally the plan would not allow U.S. companies to write off the expense of imported goods, as currently, and as such is essentially a tax on the U.S. trade deficit. Roughly, it could yield about $108 billion in revenue (assuming a 20% rate on the $538 billion deficit). The BAT is the chief tax uncertainty today for investors. That is because there are few constraints on the GOP passing some kind of corporate tax cut this year. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. There is every reason to think it will happen fast. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In other words, Trump and his party would need to have a train wreck to fail to pass something this year. That is not beyond belief! But the overriding question is whether the tax reform will be focused on cutting rates, or transforming the system. Currently, the market seems to think the BAT will go through. A basket of stocks based on potential winners and losers suggests that investors believe it will pass (Chart 4). Meanwhile, however, the share prices of high-tax companies (who should benefit the most if taxes are cut) have fallen back from the pop after Trump's election. This could signal the opposite expectation, or that that investors recognize that many high-tax sectors stand to lose from a tax on imports (Chart 5). There is considerable uncertainty in this measure. We think the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's BAT proposal. But the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show. We expect dollar volatility, which is relatively restrained at present, to rise as the BAT debate intensifies, given that the proposal is bullish for the greenback (Chart 6). Chart 4Exporters Think Border##br## Adjustment Tax Will Pass Chart 5High-Tax Companies##br## Fear Policy Disappointments Chart 6No Border Adjustment##br## Tax Effect On The Dollar Yet Bottom Line: The Trump administration and GOP would have to be unusually incompetent to fail to achieve tax reform this year. The question is whether it will be mere rate cuts or a radical reform to the tax system as a whole. This is critical to the U.S. and global economy - especially given that the passage of a BAT will intensify trade disputes with the U.S. Why Is A Border Adjustment Tax "Protectionist"? Diagram 1 provides a simple illustration of how the current U.S. corporate tax works compared to the proposed BAT. The current system is a "worldwide" corporate income tax. The U.S. government taxes American companies based on their global profits (global revenues minus global costs). No matter where they incur costs, they can write them off, and no matter where they make profits, they must pay tax on them, at least in principle. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The new system, by contrast, would be a "destination-based" tax in which the government taxes companies only on domestic profits (domestic revenues minus domestic costs). This means that revenues earned abroad from exports or sales in foreign jurisdictions would be free from tax. However - and here is the tricky part - it also means that costs incurred abroad, imports or purchases in foreign jurisdictions, would be ignored by the tax authority, i.e. they could not be written off like domestic costs. As the "rebate" in the Diagram shows, the BAT is effectively a tax on imports and subsidy to exports. This is not as egregiously protectionist as it sounds at first, because it is very similar to a Value-Added Tax (VAT), which is the dominant tax system across the world. The U.S. is a massive outlier for not having a VAT. But notice that the amount of the rebate to the exporting company in the diagram is higher (at $40) than the amount of tax that would be due if it paid a tax on its foreign profits, since ($200 - $100) x 20% = $20. The WTO may rule against the law if it believes major U.S. exporters will pay net negative taxes as a result of the rebate. Moreover, the BAT has certain differences from a VAT that ensure that the world will see it as a protectionist affront. The BAT is a combination of a VAT, which is a tax on consumption, and an income tax, which is the current system. However, the BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current system. Under VAT systems, this is not possible because wages are not consumption and therefore not deductible.6 If the GOP proposal becomes law without addressing this difference - that is, without denying corporates the wage deduction, or taxing them in some other way to compensate - it will likely prompt global trade retaliation. While the World Trade Organization may deem the BAT legal by interpreting it as a VAT, it will not do so if U.S. companies cannot show that they are not getting a leg up on their international rivals by retaining the wage deduction from the former corporate income tax code. Wages are obviously a very large part of a company's expenses. They make up about 68-72% of U.S. companies' costs (Chart 7), and have grown at about 2-4% each year for the export-oriented sector (Chart 8). If U.S. companies can write off the wage expense in their exported goods, then foreign countries will have to adjust, possibly by imposing duties to counteract the share of taxes avoided by that write-off. Chart 7Wages Make For A Large Tax Deduction Chart 8Exporters Face Strong Growth In Wages Bottom Line: The BAT is a hybrid of tax systems. It is likely that the WTO and U.S. trading partners will object to it as an import tax and export subsidy, particularly because of the wage deduction. The House GOP could adjust the proposal ahead of time or afterwards to avoid this conflict, but that has not happened yet. In addition, corporate lobbying against removing wage deductions would be severe. Will A BAT Get Passed Into Law? Currently, the House GOP leaders face a rising wave of criticism about the BAT proposal and have begun to signal greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. A salient point to remember about U.S. tax legislation is that it is very rare in recent decades for a ruling party to bungle it. Only eight pieces of tax legislation have been vetoed by presidents since 1975, only two of which were serious bills, and in both cases the president vetoed the legislation pushed by an opposition-controlled Congress (Table 2). By the time a serious tax bill makes it to the president's desk, a veto is unlikely, especially if the president and Congress belong to the same party. Table 2Major Tax Legislation Is Set Up For Success Even more salient, only 23 pieces of tax legislation since 1975 have been struck down in either of the two houses. Of these, seven were attempts to amend the constitution (not likely to pass), nine were attempts to amend the internal revenue code for highly specific things (spirits, cigars, the holding of conventions on cruise ships). Only seven were major bills, and in only one of these cases did the Senate strike down the bill, which was a case of a Republican Senate defending a Republican president from an opposition Congress. In only one case did the ruling party in the House kill a serious tax bill proposed by one of its own members, but it is not comparable to the tax reform in question today.7 What this means is that the BAT is highly likely to be passed into law if the House remains loyal to its leader Paul Ryan, and to the Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, the two authors of the BAT proposal. However, Trump could derail Ryan's best laid plans. Trump seemed to throw a wrench in the gears when he cast doubt on border adjustment tax, saying that it was too complicated. However, the Trump administration has recently made comments favorable to the BAT. Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, highlighted it as a way to bring manufacturing supply chains back into the U.S. (note the protectionist angle of the comment). Meanwhile Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said it would be a good way to make Mexico pay for the infamous wall to be constructed on the border (again, note that the angle is protectionist and populist, not about balancing the budget).8 In each case, the Trump team has gone to pains to emphasize that the BAT is only one option among many. Yet the fact that they have repeatedly brought it up as a solution to their own populist promises is suggestive. We think Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform.9 Why? Time's a'wastin': Party control of all three branches is a fleeting boon and 2018 mid-term campaigning would make the BAT harder to pass because it could hike the prices of consumer goods. Republicans have a plan ready to go, the House ultimately controls the purse, and Trump wants to move fast on tax cuts and boosting the economy. Furthermore, Republicans remember how short-lived the Democrats' control of Congress was after 2008. Trump wants to be transformative, not merely transactional:10 Trump was elected in a populist revolution and has vowed to improve American manufacturing and trade. His protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT: remove the "tax" on corporate investment to improve U.S. capital stock and productivity, and remove incentives to locate, operate, and stash profits offshore. There is at least some positive correlation between higher VAT rates and positive trade balances, and the law is simultaneously supposed to boost productivity (Charts 9 and 10). Chart 9Higher Investment Helps Productivity Chart 10Some (Not Much) Correlation Between Value-Added Tax Rates And Trade Surpluses Trump needs domestic and international "legitimacy": His protectionist platform will stand on firmer ground if he adopts policy that is at least debatable at the WTO, as opposed to imposing tariffs willy-nilly through bare executive power, which is eventually vulnerable to congressional and judicial oversight. Domestic courts have already shown an inclination to halt Trump's controversial executive orders.11 By contrast, they would almost certainly defer to Congress even on the most radical tax reforms. Trump needs a tradeoff for infrastructure spending: Unpopular presidents cannot set the legislative agenda.12 But Trump may be able to trade GOP-style corporate tax reform - which offsets tax cuts with new revenue provisions, such as the BAT - in return for infrastructure spending, which the GOP is reluctant to embrace. Trump is willing to lead a crusade against the WTO: This may be a necessary prerequisite for the passage of this bill, and Trump is heaven-sent to play the role. He would be to the WTO what George W. Bush was to the United Nations. It would be disastrous for the U.S.-built international liberal order, but it would give Trump the ability to pursue protectionism while rallying the public around the flag against America's "globalist" enemies. (Sovereignty over taxation is a cause that is hard to beat in the U.S.)13 BAT allows Trump to save face on the "Wall" with Mexico: As the White House spokesman hinted, Trump may use creative accounting to satisfy his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Moreover, if Trump comes out in support of the BAT, it will likely get passed: Chart 11Conservatives Agree With Trump Precedent: President John F. Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter's efforts at tax reform failed because Congress was not supportive, which is not a problem today; whereas Ronald Reagan's personal support for the 1986 tax reform - despite his reservations about the attempt to transform the system and broaden the base - proved critical in helping the bill move through Congress.14 Political science: The political context is a better determinant of presidential success than individual talents, and rising political polarization in the U.S. has created an environment in which "majority presidents," those whose party has a majority in Congress, are even more likely to be successful, while "minority presidents" are more likely to fail on key initiatives. The relevant factors of political context are the party's grip on Congress, the extent of polarization, and, somewhat less significantly, whether the president is in his "honeymoon period" and enjoys public support.15 Of these factors, Trump is only weak on public support, though not among conservatives (Chart 11), who could vote their representatives out of office if they defy Trump on tax reform. The Senate could still cause a serious hang-up. But if Trump and the House GOP stand behind the legislation then Senate Republicans would have to be suicidal to oppose it.16 What about the corporate lobbies that oppose the BAT? Certainly it is highly controversial at home. The tax could hurt import-heavy U.S. businesses and punish citizens with a high propensity to consume - i.e. the poor and elderly, both constituents that make up an important part of Trump's base. But that suggests that there will be carve-outs or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel, and clothing. Such compromises will be messy, and will mitigate any dollar appreciation and reduce the tax revenues to be gained, but would probably enable the bill to get passed. The opposition of retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is overrated in terms of their power as a lobby. Importers form a slightly larger lobby than exporters, which makes sense given that the U.S. is a net importing economy, but neither of them comprises a large share of total lobbying (Chart 12). The sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart 13). The opposition of the Koch brothers is also overrated, given their unhelpful attitude toward Trump's candidacy for president! Chart 12'Import Lobby' Not A Giant Lobby Chart 13Cuts In Tax Rates Mitigate A New Import Tax Somewhat Bottom Line: The BAT is a radical plan to spur corporate investment and production in the United States, and that goal matches Trump's vision. Trump will be hard pressed to find a more effective, structural way of achieving his goals. And the two-year window with assured GOP control of government will close faster than one might think. Risks To The View A major risk to the BAT is that Trump will fear the repercussions on his political base of higher consumer prices, as hinted above. Consumer pain is a necessary consequence of his mercantilist vision of rebalancing the U.S. from consumption to investment and bringing down the U.S. trade deficit, so Trump will have to decide whether he means what he says. Moreover, if the dollar rises sharply as a result of the BAT, as expected, it would cause pain for the economy and S&P 500 companies, which source 44% of earnings outside the U.S. According to BCA's Global Investment Strategy, the impact of a much stronger dollar on U.S. assets denominated in foreign currencies could amount to a loss worth of 13% of U.S. GDP! (Not to mention Trump's personal wealth from overseas.) Given the huge uncertainties of a totally new tax system, and potential disruption to the economy, it would be perfectly understandable if Trump refused to hitch his fate as president to this wonkish grand experiment. Further, it is not as if there is no alternative to the BAT. Since Republicans will be humiliated if they fail to deliver on tax cuts, Trump's opposition to the BAT would force the House GOP to go back to good ol' fashioned tax cuts without significant revenue raising measures, and specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions. Trump would still likely get the repatriation of overseas earnings, a political win, and the economy would experience an increase in investment from tax rate cuts without the uncertain consequences of deeper change. Ronald Reagan's administration offers a precedent for this sequencing, since he began his term with simple tax cuts in 1981 and only later attempted the dramatic tax overhaul of 1986. There is also a risk that the business lobby against the BAT proves stronger than expected and gains traction in the media and popular opinion as a result of the feared consequences on consumer prices. Tax reform is never going to be easy and will always hang in a precarious balance. These are serious risks, but we think Trump and the GOP will move now rather than make any assumptions about their ability to win subsequent elections and enact massive tax reform. The fact that the GOP controls all three branches of government, the BAT plan is well in the making, and Trump is looking to reshape the American economy in ways that align with the BAT, make the odds of passage higher than 50%. Unfortunately, this also means the world should brace for a sharp spike in trade disputes. Bottom Line: There are plenty of reasons to think the BAT plan could collapse of its own weight. The path of least resistance is certainly not the BAT. But we think the preponderance of power in GOP hands in Washington favors radical change, even if it ends up being a policy mistake. Investment Implications: Trade War The WTO is supposed to presume innocence with a country's laws, and it might also approve the BAT on the basis that proponents argue: the U.S. imposing the BAT is not much different from a VAT country increasing its VAT rate while simultaneously slashing the payroll tax (as France has done under President Hollande's administration). This view is misguided. The WTO will rule on the statute and international trade treaties, not the special pleading of the advocates. It may or may not accept that the BAT is equivalent to a VAT; it may or may not object to the wage deduction as a holdover from the "direct" tax on income. The GOP has not yet introduced a draft law, but given the express intention - in the Ryan plan, not even to mention Trump - to put "America first" with a "pro-America approach for global competitiveness," it seems likely that a clash of interests is in the making. In other words, American proponents of the tax are not even hiding its overt protectionist intentions. The WTO will probably discover a subsidy for U.S. exporters and a violation of the principle of trade neutrality with respect to imports. WTO litigation will take years. When the European Union sued the U.S. over its use of Foreign Sales Corporations, a comparable dispute, the proceedings began in 1999 and the WTO ruled against the U.S. in 2002. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress amended the law to avoid retaliation in 2004.17 Trump and the GOP would be less likely to amend their pet project in the current environment, especially if the litigant is the EU at the WTO! Trump, as mentioned, would be inclined to take the fight to the WTO - he has even threatened to withdraw the United States from it. His support group feeds on conflict with supra-national bodies and he may see foreign retaliation as a convenient reason to impose tariffs of his own. The trade environment would deteriorate in the meantime. In 2002, it was assumed that the U.S. and EU could work out an agreement without punitive measures, but that assumption does not hold today. And it would not only be the EU leveling complaints. In short, the U.S. would face foreign retaliation, during the proceedings and likely as a consequence of the WTO ruling. The Trump administration would attempt to mitigate the blowback through a series of bilateral deals, and perhaps the U.S. law would ultimately be modified, but the entire saga would have a negative impact on global trade. Financial markets had many factors to contend with during this period (like the dot-com bubble), and they will similarly respond to large currents in the coming years aside from any BAT. Nevertheless, the tax would reinforce our themes of global multipolarity, mercantilism, and protectionism - and thus reinforce several of our existing trades: We continue to favor small caps over large caps. Small caps are insulated from global trade, will benefit most from the cut in tax rates, and will suffer least from any appreciation of the dollar. Long volatility - Long VIX 20-25 call spread for expiration in March; Long USD versus short EM currencies; Short China-exposed S&P stocks; Short German exporters versus long consumer services. If Trump comes out in opposition to the BAT, he would send a bullish signal for markets in the short term. It would mean, first, that the U.S. will have corporate tax cuts without the broader uncertainties of the BAT; and second, that Trump is actually a pragmatist who eschews radical change if he thinks it will cause too much trouble for U.S. consumers or economic growth. However, it would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would avoid a trade conflict, given Trump's executive powers.18 Of course, the BAT's failure - which is not our baseline - would also be worse for the deficit and debt, as the GOP tax cuts would have no offsetting revenue increases but would rely purely on creative accounting, "dynamic scoring," to appear fiscally acceptable. This legislation would also likely fail to simplify the tax code as much as the BAT would. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alan J. Auerbach, "A Modern Corporate Tax," Center for American Progress, dated December 2010, available at www.americanprogress.org. 3 Please see President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, "Final Report," dated November 1, 2005, available at govinfo.library.unt.edu. 4 Please see "A Better Way: Our Vision For A Confident America: Tax," dated June 24, 2016, available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 5 Our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy have recently provided a very helpful Q&A on the border adjustment tax (BAT), and we would refer readers to that report for a detailed discussion. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "Back To 1913?: The Ryan Blueprint And Its Problems," Tax Notes 153: 11 (2016), 1367-47, reprinted by University of Michigan, available at www.repository.law.umich.edu. 7 Amo Houghton, a liberal-leaning Republican from New York, proposed the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002, a bill to streamline IRS administration. It failed in the Republican Congress under President Bush. 8 Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017, available at www.ft.com, and Bob Bryan, "Trump press secretary says the administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall," Business Insider, January 26, 2017, available at www.businessinsider.com. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has also indicated that the BAT is an option but not yet decided upon, see CNBC, "Squawk on the Street," February 3, 2017, available at www.cnbc.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already issued a temporary injunction against President Trump's executive orders on immigration. Please see "State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump," available at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 12 Please see John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner, "Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, For A Little While," Policy Studies Journal 43: 1 (2015), 22-44, available at www.unc.edu. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, and "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 15 Jeffrey E. Cohen, Jon R. Bond, and Richard Fleisher, "Placing Presidential-Congressional Relations In Context: A Comparison Of Barack Obama And His Predecessors," Polity 45:1 (2013), 105-126. 16 The Senate Financial Services Committee's support will be critical. Chairman Orrin Hatch has criticized but not yet declared against the BAT. Even if he does, it would not necessarily kill the deal. One of his predecessors, Senator Bob Packwood, initially opposed the Tax Reform Act in 1986 but was ultimately persuaded to support it. If Hatch and the Finance Committee support the initiative, it will pass the Senate. First, the tax overhaul can be accomplished by "reconciliation," a congressional trick that will enable the GOP to avoid a Senate filibuster and pass the tax reform with a simple majority. Second, the Republicans today have almost exactly the proportion of seats in the Senate as the average in previous examples of successful tax reform (see Table 1). So there would have to be a higher share of Republican defectors than in the past to overturn the bill. This is possible but unlikely if Trump and the House GOP are behind the bill. 17 Please see Congressional Research Service, "A History of the Extraterritorial Income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Export Tax-Benefit Controversy," dated September 22, 2006, available at digital.library.unt.edu. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
We took profits on our underweight S&P hotel index position and upgraded to neutral in November, because a number of companies reduced 2017 guidance and revenue per room (REVPAR) expectations at the same time that value had improved. Since then, hotel stocks have outperformed significantly, as the improvement in consumer and business sentiment is expected to boost lodging spending. That is necessary to counter the surge in wage inflation, as measured by the acceleration in the lodging industry employment cost index (bottom panel). Perhaps the most appealing development of late has been the downturn in lodging industry construction outlays. If sustained, that will reverse a long-term increase in capacity. The latter is critical to fostering more robust pricing power gains in line with past cyclical upswings. The bottom line is that the outlook for hotel profits has improved, but staying patient for a more attractive entry point is recommended given that the share price ratio is extremely overbought in the short run. Stay neutral, but put this group on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, WYN.
While bank stocks are quick to react positively to any indication that the regulatory burden may eventually be diminished, beneath the surface, there are mounting signs of profit headwinds. The latest Fed Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey revealed that banks are tightening lending standards on most loan categories. Worrisomely, demand for commercial, consumer, mortgage and C&I loans is also waning. In fact, C&I loan growth is now contracting on a 3-month rate of change basis. A cooling in bank balance sheet expansion may expose a heavier cost structure than desired in the coming quarters, given that bank employment has been on the upswing. Absent any renewed steepening in the yield curve, the surprise could be that bank stocks underperform in the coming months after overshooting since the election. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.
Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Overzealousness no longer exists, and a revival in market volatility and intensification in policy uncertainty have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. More recently, the yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month and may be signaling the start of another move up in gold shares. Importantly, sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower, reversing last summer's buying frenzy. Speculative positions have also been unwound. Against a positive structural backdrop for gold, we recommend reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.
The S&P containers & packaging group offers a more attractively valued alternative to play a transportation recovery than either rails or air freight. Global export volumes have begun to rebound, consistent with the increase in U.S. port traffic and intermodal (consumer) goods shipments. Any increase in global trade would bolster sentiment toward this high volume industry. Companies in this index are also highly exposed to the food and beverage business since the bulk of consumable non-durable goods products require packaging materials. As such, its fortunes rise and fall with swings in food prices. The current contraction in the food CPI has spawned a boom in food consumption, as measured by the surge in real (volumes) personal outlays on food & beverage products. This phenomenon is also true on a global basis, as food exports are booming, a remarkable development given U.S. dollar appreciation. If food and beverage consumption stays robust, then the relative valuation expansion in packaging stocks will persist. In sum, packaging stocks offer attractive exposure within an otherwise unattractive S&P materials sector. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details on our upgrade to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, SEE, AVY.