Developed Countries
Highlights President Trump is as protectionist as Candidate Trump; USD shortage to tighten global financial conditions; Go Long MXN/RMB as a tactical play on U.S.-China trade war; Brexit risks are now overstated; EU will not twist the knife. EUR/GBP is overbought; go short. Feature "We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it's going to be America First." U.S. President Donald Trump, January 20, 2017, Inaugural Address What are the investment implications of an "America First" world? First, it may be useful to visualize the "America Second" world that President Trump is looking to leave in the rear-view mirror. Chart 1 shows the cost of hegemony. Since the Nixon shock in 1971, the U.S. has seen its trade balance deepen and its military commitments soar, in absolute terms. For President Donald Trump, the return on American investment has been low. Wasteful wars, crumbling infrastructure, decaying factories, stagnant wages, this is what the U.S. has to show for two decades of hegemony. Chart 1United States: The Cost Of Hegemony On the other hand, the U.S. has enjoyed the exorbitant privilege of its hegemonic position. In at least one major sense, America's allies (and China) are already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets. Chart 2 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege." Despite a deeply negative net international investment position, the U.S. has a positive net investment income.1 Chart 2The "Exorbitant Privilege" Being the global hegemon effectively lowers U.S. borrowing costs and domestic interest rates, giving U.S. policymakers and consumers an "interest rate they do not deserve." That successive administrations decided to waste this privilege on redrawing the map of the Middle East and giving the wealthiest Americans massive tax cuts, instead of rebuilding Middle America, is hardly the fault of the rest of the world! Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability and deep liquidity of the market, and the perceived stability of its political system. More importantly, they hold U.S. assets because the U.S. acts as both a global defender and a consumer of last resort. If Washington were to raise barriers to its markets and become a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and decide to diversify more rapidly. Investors can interpret Trump's "America First" agenda broadly as an effort to dramatically reduce the U.S. current account deficit. Certainly we see his statements on renegotiating NAFTA, facing off against China on trade, and encouraging U.S. exports with tax legislation as parts of a broad effort aimed at improving the U.S. trade balance. If the U.S. were to pursue these protectionist policies aggressively, the end result would be a massive shortage of U.S. dollars globally, a form of global financial tightening. The rest of the world is not blind to the dangers of an America focused on reducing its current account deficit. According to the reporting of Der Spiegel magazine, Chancellor Angela Merkel sent several delegations to meet with the Trump team starting in 2015! No doubt Berlin was nervous hearing candidate Trump's protectionist talk, given that Germany runs one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In the last such meeting, taking place after the election was decided, Trump's son-in-law and White House advisor, Jared Kushner, asked the Germans a point-blank question, "What can you do for us?"2 In the 1980s, the U.S. asked West Germany and Japan the same question. The result was the 1985 Plaza Accord that engineered the greenback's depreciation versus the deutschmark and the yen (Chart 4). Recent comments from Donald Trump suggest that he would like to follow a similar script, where dollar depreciation does the heavy lifting in adjusting the country's current account deficit.3 Chart 3Trump's Black List Chart 4The Impact Of The Plaza Accord The Trump administration may have dusted off the Reagan playbook from the 1980s, but the world is playing a different game in 2017. First, the Soviet Union no longer exists and certainly no longer has more than 70,000 tanks ready to burst through the "Fulda Gap" towards Frankfurt. President Trump will find China, Germany, and Japan less willing to help the U.S. close its current account deficit, particularly if Trump continues his rhetorical assault on everything from European unity to Japanese security to the One China policy. Second, China, not U.S. allies Germany and Japan, has the largest trade surplus with the U.S. It is very difficult to see Beijing agreeing to a coordinated currency appreciation of the RMB, particularly when it is being threatened with a showdown over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Third, even if China wanted to kowtow to the Trump administration, it is not clear that RMB appreciation can be engineered. The country's capital outflows have swelled to a record level of $205 billion (Chart 5) and the PBoC has continued to inject RMB into the banking system via outright lending to banks and open-market operations (Chart 6). Unlike Japan in 1985, China is at the peak of its leveraging cycle and thus unwilling to see its currency - and domestic interest rates - appreciate. At best, Beijing can continue to fight capital outflows and close its capital account. But even this creates a paradox, since the U.S. administration can accuse it of currency manipulation even if such manipulation is preventing, not enabling, currency depreciation!4 Chart 5China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows Chart 6PBoC Injects Massive Liquidity To conclude, the world is (re)entering a mercantilist era and sits at the Apex of Globalization.5 The new White House is almost singularly focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down. It intends to do this by means of three primary tools: Protectionism: The Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed a "destination-based border adjustment tax," which would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. (It would levy the corporate tax on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs, thus giving a rebate to exporters who make revenues abroad while incurring costs domestically.)6 While the proponents of the new tax system argue it is equivalent to the VAT systems in G7 economies, the change would nonetheless undermine America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." In our view, it would be the opening salvo of a global trade war. Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. He has also insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption. (Details are scant: His Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has denied an across-the-board tax of this nature, but has confirmed that one would apply to specific companies.) Structural Demands: Trump's approach suggests that he wishes to force structural changes on trade surplus economies in order to correct structural imbalances in the American economy - and in this process he is not adverse to lobbing strategic threats. While he holds out the possibility of charging China with currency manipulation, in fact he can draw from a whole sheet of American trade grievances not limited to the currency to demand major changes to their trade relationship. The fundamental problem for the global economy is that in order to reduce the U.S. current account deficit, the world must experience severe global tightening. Dollars held by U.S. multinationals abroad, which finance global credit markets, will come back to the U.S. and tighten liquidity abroad. And emerging market corporate borrowers who have overextended themselves borrowing in U.S. dollars will struggle to repay debts in appreciating dollars. These structural trends are set to exacerbate an already ongoing cyclical process. As BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has recently pointed out, global demand for U.S. dollars is rising faster than the supply of U.S. dollars.7 Our EM team's first measure of U.S. dollar liquidity is "the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for official and international accounts." The second measure "is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreign residents." As Chart 7 and Chart 8 illustrate, both calculations indicate that dollar liquidity is in a precipitous decline already. Meanwhile, foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasury securities is contracting, while the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreigners has stalled (Chart 9). Chart 7Dollar Liquidity Declining... Chart 8... Any Way You Look At It Chart 9Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Chart 10It Hurts To Borrow In USD Concurrently, U.S. dollar borrowing costs continue to rise (Chart 10). Our EM team expects EM debtors with U.S. dollar liabilities to either repay U.S. dollar debt or hedge it. This will ultimately increase the demand for U.S. dollars in the months ahead. Near-term U.S. dollar appreciation will only reinforce and accelerate the mercantilist push in the White House and Congress. President Trump and the GOP in the House will find common ground on the border-adjustment tax, which Trump recently admitted he did not understand or look favorably upon. The passage of the law, or some such equivalent, has a much greater chance than investors expect. So does a U.S.-China trade war, as we argued last week.8 How should investors position themselves for the confluence of geopolitical, political, and financial factors we have described above? The world is facing both the cyclical liquidity crunch that BCA's Emerging Markets Team has elucidated and the potential for a secular tightening as the Trump administration focuses its efforts on closing the U.S. current account deficit. Five investment implications are top of our mind: Chart 11Market Response To Trump Win On High End Chart 12Market Is Priced For 'Magnificent' Events Buy VIX. The S&P 500 has continued to power on since the election, buoyed by positive economic surprises, strong global earnings, and the hope of a pro-business shift in the White House. The equity market performance puts the Trump presidency in the upper range of post-election market outcomes (Chart 11). However, with 10-year Treasuries back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is pricing none of the political and geopolitical risks of an impending trade war between the U.S. and China, nor is it pricing the general mercantilist shift in Washington D.C. (Chart 12). As a result, we recommend that clients put on a "mercantilist hedge," like deep out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts, or VIX calls. For instance, a long VIX 20/25 call spread for March expiry. Long DM / Short EM. Mercantilism and the U.S. dollar bull market are the worst combination possible for EM risk assets. We therefore reiterate our long-held strategic recommendation of being long developed markets / short emerging markets. Overweight Euro Area Equities. Investors should overweight euro area equities relative to the U.S. As we have discussed in the 2017 Strategic Outlook, political risks in Europe this year are a red herring.9 We will expand on the upcoming French elections in next week's report. Meanwhile, investors appear complacent about protectionism and what it may mean for the S&P 500, which sources 44% of its earnings abroad. European companies, on the other hand, could stand to profit from a China-U.S. trade war. Chart 13Peso Is A Buy Versus Trump's Enemy #1 Chart 14Peso As Cheap As During Tequila Crisis Long MXN/RMB. As a tactical play on the U.S.-China trade war, we recommend clients go long MXN/RMB (Chart 13). The peso is now as cheap as it was in early 1995, at the heights of the Tequila Crisis, as per the BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy model (Chart 14). While Mexico remains squarely in Trump's crosshairs on immigration and security, the damage to the currency appears to be done and has ironically made the country's exports more competitive. In addition, Trump's pick for Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has informed his NAFTA counterparts that "rules of origin" will be central to NAFTA re-negotiation. This can be interpreted as the U.S. using every tool at its disposal to impose punitive measures on China, including forcing NAFTA partners to close off the "rules of origin" loophole.10 But the reality is that the U.S. trade deficit with its NAFTA partners is far less daunting than that with China (Chart 15). Meanwhile, we remain negative on the RMB for fundamental reasons that we have stressed in our research. Small Is Beautiful. We continue to recommend that clients find protection from rising protectionism in small caps. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, also points out that small caps in the U.S. will benefit as the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, which will benefit small caps disproportionally to large caps given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies will benefit most from any cuts in regulations, most of which have been written by multinationals in order to create barriers to entry (Chart 16). Of course, we could just be paranoid! After all, much of Trump's proposed policies - massive tax cuts, infrastructure spending, major rearmament, the border wall - would increase domestic spending and thus widen the current account deficit, not shrink it. And all the protectionism and de-globalization could just be posturing by the Trump administration, both to get a better deal from China and Europe and to give voters in the Midwest some political red meat. Chart 15China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Chart 16Small Is Beautiful But Geopolitical Strategy analysts get paid to be paranoid! And we worry that much of Trump's promises that would widen U.S. deficits are being watered down or pushed to the background. Yes, we have held a high conviction view that infrastructure spending would come through, but now it appears that it will be complemented with significant spending cuts. The next 100 days will tell us which prerogatives the Trump Administration favors: rebuilding America directly, or doing so indirectly via protectionism. If the former, then the current market rally is justified. If the intention is to reduce the current account deficit, look out. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Brexit: A Brave New World Miranda: O brave new world! Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. — Shakespeare, The Tempest The U.K. Supreme Court ruled on January 24 that parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which enables the U.K. to "exit" the European Union. This decision, as well as Theresa May's January 17 "Brexit means exit" speech, caught us in London while visiting clients. Reactions were mixed. The pound continues to rally. January 16 remains the low point in the GBP/USD cross since the vote to leave on June 23 last year (Chart 17). Chart 17Has Brexit Uncertainty Bottomed? Should investors expect more downside to the pound or do the recent events mark a bottom in political uncertainty? The market consensus suggests that further volatility in the pound is warranted for three reasons: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Prime Minister May's assertion that the U.K. would seek to exit the common market is negative for the country's economy; Legal uncertainties about Brexit remain. We disagree with this assessment, at least in the short and medium term. Therefore, the pound rally on the day of May's speech was warranted, although we agree that exiting the EU Common Market will ultimately be suboptimal for the country's economy. First, by setting out a clean break from the EU, including the common market, Prime Minister May has removed a considerable amount of political uncertainty. As we pointed out in our original net assessment of Brexit, leaving the EU while remaining in its common market is illogical.11 Paradoxically, the U.K. stood to lose rather than regain sovereignty if it left the EU yet remained in the common market (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Quite Un-British Lack Of Common Sense Behind Soft Brexit Why? Because membership in the common market entails a financial burden, full adoption of the acquis communautaire (the EU body of law), and acceptance of the "Four Freedoms," including the freedom of movement of workers. Given that the Brexit vote was largely motivated by concerns of sovereignty and immigration (Chart 18), it did not make sense to vote to leave the EU and then seek to retain membership in the common market. Apparently May and her cabinet agree. Chart 18It's Sovereignty, Stupid! Second, now that the U.K. has chosen to depart from the common market, the EU no longer needs to take as hostile of a negotiating position as before. The EU member states were not going to let the U.K. dictate its own terms of membership. That would have set a precedent for future Euroskeptic governments looking for an alternative relationship with the bloc, i.e. the so-called "Europe, à la carte" that European policymakers dread. But now that the U.K. is asking for a clean exit, with a free trade agreement to be negotiated in lieu of common market membership, the EU has less reason to punish London. An FTA arrangement will be beneficial to EU exporters, who want access to the U.K. market, and it will send a message to Euroskeptics on the continent that there is no alternative to full membership. Leaving the EU means leaving the market and falling back - at best - to an FTA-level relationship that the EU shares with Mexico and (most recently) Canada. Third, leaving the EU and the common market are political, not legal, decisions, and the lingering legal battles are neither avoidable nor likely to be substantive. Theresa May had already stolen thunder when she said that the final deal with the EU would be put to a vote in parliament. The Supreme Court ruling - as well as other legal hangups - could conceivably give rise to complications that bind the government's hands, but most likely parliament will pass a simple bill or motion granting permission for the government to invoke Article 50. That is because the referendum, and public opinion since then, speak loud and clear (Chart 19). The Conservative Party remains in a comfortable lead over the Labour Party (Chart 20), which itself is not opposing the referendum outcome. In addition, the House of Commons has already approved the government's Brexit timetable by a margin of 372 seats in a 650-seat body - with 461 ayes. That is a stark contrast with a few months ago when around 494 MPs were said to be against Brexit. Chart 19No 'Bremorse' Or 'Bregret' Chart 20Tories Still Triumphant The bigger question comes down to the parliamentary vote on the deal that is to be negotiated over the next two years. Could the Parliament vote down the final agreement with the EU? Absolutely. However, it is unlikely. The economic calamity predicted by many commentators has not happened, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: The combination of the Supreme Court decision and Prime Minister May's speech has reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The EU will negotiate hard with the U.K., but the main cause of consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - is now off the table. Yes, the EU does hold all the cards when it comes to negotiating an FTA agreement, and the process could entail some alarming twists and turns (given the last-minute crisis in the EU-Canada FTA). But we do not expect EU-U.K. negotiations to imperil the pound dramatically beyond what we've already seen. Will Leaving The Common Market Hurt Britain? Does this mean that Brexit is "much ado about nothing?" In the short and medium term, we think the answer is yes. In the long-term, leaving the EU Common Market is a suboptimal outcome for three reasons: Trade - Net exports rarely contribute positively to U.K. growth (Chart 21) and the trade deficit with the EU is particularly deep. As such, proponents of Brexit claim that putting up modest trade barriers against the EU could be beneficial. However, the U.K. has a services trade surplus with the EU (Chart 22). While it is not as large as the trade deficit, there was hope that the eventual implementation of the 2006 EU's Services Directive would have opened up new markets for U.K.'s highly competitive services industry and thus reduced the trade deficit over time. As the bottom panel of Chart 22 shows, the U.K.'s service exports to the rest of the world have outpaced those to the EU, suggesting that there is much room for improvement. This hope is now dashed and the EU may go back to putting up non-tariff barriers to services that reverse Britain's modest surplus with the bloc. Free Trade Agreements rarely adequately cover services, which means that the U.K.'s hope of expanding service exports to a new high is probably gone. Chart 21U.K. Is Consumer-Driven Chart 22Service Exports At Risk After Brexit Foreign Investment - FDI is declining, whether for cyclical reasons or because foreign companies fear losing access to Europe via the U.K. It remains to be seen how FDI will respond to the U.K.'s renunciation of the common market, but it is unlikely to be positive (Chart 23). The U.K.'s financial sector will also be negatively impacted since leaving the common market will mean that London will no longer have recourse to the EU judiciary in order to stymie European protectionism.12 This is unlikely to destroy London's status as the global financial center, but it will impact FDI on the margin. Labor Growth - The loss of labor inflow will be the biggest cost of Brexit. A decrease of immigration from the EU could reduce the U.K.'s labor force growth by a maximum of two-thirds, translating to a 25% loss in the potential GDP growth rate (Chart 24). While the U.K. is not, in fact, closing off all immigration, labor-force growth will decline, and potential GDP with it. Chart 23FDI To Suffer From Brexit? Chart 24Labor Growth Suffers Most From Brexit In addition, the EU Common Market forces companies to compete for market share in the developed world's largest consumer market. This competition is supposed to accelerate creative destruction and thus productivity, while giving the winners of the competition the spoils, i.e. a better ability to establish "economies of scale." In a 2011 report, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) published an econometric study that compared four scenarios: the U.K. remains in the common market as the EU fully liberalizes trade; the U.K. remains in the EU's single market, but does not fully liberalize trade with the rest of the EU; the U.K. leaves the common market; the U.K. enters NAFTA.13 Of the four scenarios, only the first leads to an increase in wealth for the U.K., with 7.1% additional GDP over ten years. U.K. exports would increase by 47%, against 38.1% for its imports. Wages of both skilled and unskilled workers would increase as well. Meanwhile, the report finds that closer integration with NAFTA would not compensate for looser U.K. ties with the EU. In fact, the U.K. national income would be 7.4% smaller if the U.K. tied up with NAFTA instead of taking part in further trade liberalization on the continent. Why rely on a 2011 report for the assessment of benefits of the common market? Because it was written by a competent, relatively unbiased international body and predates the highly politicized environment surrounding Brexit that has since infected almost all think-tank research. And yet the more recent research echoes the 2011 report in terms of the negative consequences of leaving the common market.14 In addition, the BIS study actually attempts to forecast the benefit of further removing trade barriers in the single market, which is at least the intention of the EU Commission. That said, our concerns regarding the U.K. economy are long-term. It may take years before the full economic impact of leaving the common market can be assessed. In addition, much of our analysis hinges on the Europeans fully liberalizing the common market and removing the last remaining non-tariff barriers to trade, particularly of services. At the present-day level of liberalization, the U.K. may benefit by leaving. In addition, we do not expect a balance-of-payments crisis in the U.K. any time soon. The U.K. current account is deeply negative, unsurprisingly so given the deep trade imbalance with the EU and world. However, our colleague Mathieu Savary, Vice-President of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that the elasticity of imports to the pound is in fact negative, a very surprising result. This reflects an extremely elevated import content of British exports. A lower pound is therefore unlikely to be the most crucial means of improving the current-account position. Certainly leaving the common market will not improve the competitiveness of British exports in the EU. Chart 25The U.K.'s Basic Balance Is Healthy But this raises a bigger question: why does the U.K. have to improve its current account deficit? As our FX team points out in Chart 25, despite having a current-account deficit of nearly 6% of GDP, the U.K. runs a basic balance-of-payments surplus of 12%, even after the recent fall in FDI inflows. The reason for the massive balance-of-payments surplus is the financial account surplus of 6.17% of GDP, a feature of the U.K. being a destination for foreign capital, which flows from its status as a global financial center and prime real estate destination. In other words, leaving the common market will not change the fundamentals of the U.K. balance of payments much. The country will remain a global financial center and will still run a capital account surplus, which will suppress the country's interest rates, buoy the GBP, and give tailwinds to imports of foreign goods. Meanwhile, exports will not benefit as they will face marginally higher tariffs as the country exits the EU Common Market. At best, new tariffs will be offset by a cheaper GBP. As such, leaving the common market is not going to be a disaster for the U.K. Nor will it be a panacea for the country's deep current account deficit. And that is okay. The U.K. will not face a crisis in funding its current account deficit. What is clear is that for the time being, the U.K. economy is holding up. Our forex strategists recently argued that U.K.'s growth has surprised to the upside and that the improvement is sustainable: Monetary and fiscal policy are both accommodative (Chart 26); Inflation is limited; Tight labor market drives up wages and puts cash in consumers' pockets (Chart 27); Credit growth remains robust (Chart 28). Chart 26Easy Money Smooths The Way To Brexit Chart 27British Labor Market Tightening Chart 28U.K. Credit Growth Looking Good This means that the political trajectory is set for the time being. "Bremorse" and "Bregret" will remain phantoms for the time being. Bottom Line: Leaving the common market is a suboptimal but not apocalyptic outcome for the U.K. The combination of decent economic performance and lowered political uncertainty in the near term will support the pound. Given the pound's 20% correction since the June referendum, we believe that the market has already priced in the new, marginally negative, post-Brexit paradigm. The Big Picture It is impossible to say whether the long-term negative economic effects of Brexit will affect voters drastically enough and quickly enough for Scotland, or parliament, to act in 2018 or 2019 and modify the government's decision to pursue a "Hard Brexit." It seems conceivable if something changes in the fundamental dynamics outlined above, but we wouldn't bet on it. At the moment even a new Scottish referendum appears unlikely (Chart 29). Scottish voters have soured on independence, perhaps due to a combination of continued political uncertainty in the EU (Scotland's political alternative to the U.K.) and a collapse in oil prices (arguably Scotland's economic alternative to the U.K.). The issue is not resolved but on ice for the time being. Chart 29Brexit Not Driving Scots To Independence (Yet) More likely, the government will get its way on Brexit and the 2020 elections will mark a significant popular test of the Conservative leadership and the final deal with the EU. Then the aftermath will be an entirely new ballgame for the U.K. and all four of its constituent nations. If Britain's new beginning is founded on protectionism and dirigisme - as the government suggests - then the public is likely to be disappointed. The "brave new world" of Brexit may prove to be rather mundane, disappointing, and eerily reminiscent of the ghastly 1970s.15 Hence the Shakespeare quote at the top of this report. The political circumstances of Brexit resemble the U.K. landscape before it joined the European Economic Community in 1973: greater government role in the economy, trade protectionism, tight labor market, higher wages, and inflation. Yet this was a period when the U.K. economy underperformed Europe's. The U.K.'s eventual era of outperformance was contingent on the structural reforms of the Thatcher era and expanded access to the European market (Chart 30). It remains to be seen what happens when the U.K. leaves the market and rolls back Thatcherite reforms. The weak pound and proactive fiscal policy will fail to create a manufacturing revolution. That is because most manufacturing has hollowed out because of automation, not foreign workers stealing Britons' jobs. Moreover, as for the pound, it is important to remember that currency effects are temporary and any boost to exports that the weak pound is generating will be short-lived, as with the case of China in the 1990s and the EU in the past two years (Chart 31). Chart 30U.K. Growth To Lag Europe's Once Again? Chart 31Export Boost From Devaluation Is Fleeting In addition, we would argue that, in an environment of de-globalization - in which tariffs are rising, albeit slowly for the time being (Chart 32) - the EU Common Market provides Europe with a mechanism by which to protect its vast consumer market. The U.K. may have chosen the precisely wrong time in which to abandon the protection of continental European protectionism. It could suffer by finding itself on the outside of the common market as global tariffs begin to rise significantly. Chart 32Protectionism On The March What about the restoration of the "Special Relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S.? Could moving to the "front of the queue" on negotiating an FTA with the world's largest economy make a difference for the U.K.? Perhaps, but as the BIS study above indicates, an FTA with North America or the U.S. alone is unlikely to replace the benefits of the common market. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how a protectionist U.S. administration that is looking to massively decrease its current account deficit will help the U.K. expand trade with the U.S. By contrast, Trump's election in the United States poses massive risks to globalization, both through his protectionism and the strong USD implications of his core policies. This will reverberate negatively across the commodities and EM space. In such an environment, the U.K. may not be able to make much headway in its "Global Britain" initiatives to conclude fast trade deals with EM economies that stand to lose the most in the de-globalization era. Bottom Line: As a trading nation, the U.K. is likely to lose out in a prolonged period of de-globalization. Membership in the EU could have served as a bulwark against this global trend. Investment Implications We diverge from our colleagues in the Foreign Exchange Strategy and European Investment Strategy when it comes to the assessment of political risk looming over Brexit.16 The decision to leave the common market will alleviate the pressure on Europeans to seek vindictive punishment. Earlier, the U.K. was forcing them to choose between making an exception to the rules and demonstrating the negative consequences of leaving the bloc. Now the U.K. is self-evidently taking on its own punishment - the economic burden of leaving the common market - and the EU will probably deem that sufficient. Will the EU play tough? Yes, especially since the EU retains considerable economic leverage over Britain (Chart 33). But the stakes are far smaller now. Furthermore, investors should remember that core European states - especially France and Germany - remain major military allies of the U.K. and will continue to be deeply intertwined economically. As such, we believe that the pound has already priced in the new economic paradigm and that the expectations of political uncertainty ahead of the U.K.-EU negotiations may be overdone. We therefore recommend that investors short EUR/GBP outright. Our aforementioned forex strategist Mathieu Savary argues that, on an intermediate-term basis, the outlook for this cross is driven by interest rate differentials and policy considerations. Due to the balance-sheet operations conducted by the BoE and ECB, interest rates in the U.K. and the euro area do not fully reflect domestic policy stances. Instead, Mathieu uses the shadow rates. Currently, shadow rates unequivocally point toward a lower EUR/GBP (Chart 34). In fact, balance-sheet dynamics point toward shorting EUR/GBP. Chart 33EU Holds The Cards In FTA Negotiation Chart 34Shadow Rates Point To Stronger GBP For full disclosure, Mathieu cautions clients to wait on executing a short EUR/GBP until after Article 50 is enacted. By contrast, we think that political uncertainty regarding Brexit likely peaked on January 16. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive a much lower return on U.S. assets while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 2 Please see Spiegel Online, "Donald Trump and the New World Order," dated January 20, 2017, available at Spiegel.de. 3 In a widely-quoted interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump said that the U.S. dollar is "too strong." He continued that, "Our companies can't compete with [China] now because our currency is too strong. And it's killing us." Please see The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Warns on House Republican Tax Plan," dated January 16, 2017, available at wsj.com. 4 We would note that the Trump administration and its Treasury Department have considerable leeway over how they choose to interpret China's foreign exchange practices. In 1992, when the U.S. government last accused China of currency manipulation, it issued a warning in its spring report before leveling the accusation in the winter report. The RMB did not depreciate in the meantime but remained stable, and Treasury noted this approvingly; however, Treasury chose 1989 as the base level for its assessment, and found manipulation. The Trump administration could use much more aggressive interpretive methods than this to achieve its ends. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, and Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 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. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options," dated January 11, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Critics, including Trump supporters, claim that NAFTA sets too low of a threshold for the domestic content of a good deemed to have originated within the NAFTA countries. Goods that are nearly 40% foreign-made can thus be treated as NAFTA-made. This is one of many contentious points in the trade deal. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 In 2015, the U.K. took the ECB to court over its decision to require financial transactions denominated in euros to be conducted in the euro area, i.e. out of the City, and won. This avenue of legal redress will no longer be available for the U.K., allowing EU member states to slowly introduce rules and regulations that corral the financial industry - or at least to the parts focused on transactions in euros - out of London. 13 Please see Bank of International Settlements, "The economic consequences for the U.K. and the EU of completing the Single Market," BIS Economics Paper No. 11, dated February 2011, available at www.gov.uk. 14 Please see Her Majesty's Government, "H.M. Treasury Analysis: The Long-Term Economic Impact Of EU Membership And The Alternatives," Cmnd. 9250, April 2016, available at www.gov.uk. and Jagjit S. Chadha, "The Referendum Blues: Shocking The System," National Institute Economic Review 237 (August 2016), available at www.niesr.ac.uk. 15 We were going to use "grey" to describe Britain in the 1970s. However, our colleague Martin Barnes, BCA's Chief Economist, insisted that "grey" did not do the "ghastly" 1970s justice. When it comes to the U.K. in the 1970s, we are going to defer to Martin. 16 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “May’s Brexit Speech: No Substance,” dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
After the election, machinery stocks jumped sharply on the hope that only Trump's growth-oriented policies will be successful while growth-restrictive proposals will be watered down, supporting commodity prices and ultimately reinvigorating machinery demand. However, the risk is that the waiting period will prove longer than expected, testing investor patience. While global manufacturing surveys have perked up on the back of inventory restocking, global machinery orders are still sinking, and U.S. machinery new orders are contracting. The strong U.S. dollar makes it dangerous to extrapolate firming global surveys into strong U.S. corporate performance. The chart shows that relative machinery EPS estimates have moved in the opposite direction of relative share prices. As a result, the bottom panel of the chart shows that relative valuations have skyrocketed. The S&P machinery sector's forward P/E is now trading at a 20% premium to the broad market (over a two decade high, excluding the Great Recession) spiking 6% since November. If earnings fail to live up to extremely optimistic expectations, as we expect, then relative share prices are at risk of a retracement. Bottom Line: Continue to underweight the S&P machinery index.
Highlights Mexico and China are not the only countries that could suffer from U.S. trade protectionism. Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand are also at risk. The global inflationary versus deflationary impact of U.S. trade protectionism will depend on the magnitude of exchange rate adjustments. Currencies will adjust to redistribute the inflationary and deflationary impact of U.S. tariffs and Border Adjustment Taxes between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Go long three-month volatility in the KRW, the MYR and the THB. The Turkish lira has approached our target of TRY/USD 3.9. Investors should book profits for now and reinstate short if the lira rebounds to 3.5 Feature Chart I-1Are Share Prices Discounting ##br##U.S. Trade Protectionism? The odds of a considerable rise in U.S. trade protectionism have ratcheted up since President Donald Trump's victory in early November, yet global share prices have been sanguine about it. Equities have instead focused on the positives of Trump's agenda such as fiscal stimulus and deregulation. Does this mean that the marketplace is overly complacent? One can argue that potential trade wars are a well-known risk, and as such are already discounted in share prices. It is also possible to argue that the equity markets did not fall at all ahead of and following Trump's victory to discount potential negatives from trade protectionism. The only market that has reacted to discount looming trade restrictions is Mexico, specifically the peso and its fixed-income markets. However, the ramifications of U.S. trade protectionism will reverberate well beyond Mexico. Global ex-U.S. share prices have not corrected at all to discount the potential negatives (Chart I-1). Unless the U.S. dollar surges, U.S. manufacturers will likely benefit from protectionist measures. However, U.S inflation and interest rates will rise in this scenario, weighing on equity valuation multiples. Overall, the majority of America's trade partners are at risk. In this week's report, we assess the vulnerability of various EM countries to the U.S. trade assault. U.S. trade restrictions will take the form of either import tariffs, a Border Adjustment Tax (BAT),1 or a mix of both. We conclude that buying volatility of select EM currencies is one way to profit from budding U.S. protectionism. Vulnerability To A U.S. Trade Assault Below we analyze which EM economies are most at risk from U.S. import tariffs and BAT. Given it is impossible to know whether the U.S. will adopt import tariffs, a BAT, or some combination of the two, we evaluate the impact on developing countries from both measures. Import tariffs: To assess each country's exposure to potential import tariffs, we examine the size of export shipments to America relative to that country's GDP. Table I-1 shows that Mexico, Canada, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand have the largest exports to the U.S. as a share of their economy. For Mexico, Canada and Malaysia, we exclude oil shipments to the U.S., as it is not clear whether oil will be subject to import tariffs. BAT: The principal variable gauging a country's vulnerability to a BAT is its trade balance with the U.S. This is because a BAT is both a penalty on imports into the U.S. as well as a subsidy on American exports. Hence, this analysis has to take into consideration not only a country's shipments to the U.S. but also American producers' exports to that country. Table I-2 shows the size of each country's trade balance with the U.S. as a share of its GDP. Table I-1Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs Table I-2Vulnerability To BATs Again, for Mexico, Canada and Malaysia, we exclude the oil trade balance with the U.S. from the calculation. 3. Combined vulnerability ranking. Lack of clarity on trade policy specifics the U.S. is going to adopt means that we may need to synthesize the above analysis, combining the vulnerability ranking on both measures into one. Chart I-2 plots trade balances on the X axis and exports to the U.S. on the Y axis. It appears Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan and Thailand are the most vulnerable, based on both criteria. Chart I-2Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs And Border Adjustment Taxes Another way to generate a vulnerability ranking is to calculate an aggregate score based on Tables I-1 and I-2 because either import tariffs, a BAT or some combination of the two will be adopted by the U.S. The aggregate vulnerability score is presented in Chart I-3. Chart I-3U.S. Trade Protectionism Vulnerability Ranking According to the overall vulnerability score, Mexico, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Korea are the most exposed to potential U.S. trade protectionism measures. By contrast, Turkey, Brazil and Chile are the least exposed. Bottom Line: Mexico and China are not the only countries that could suffer from U.S. trade protectionism. Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand are also at risk. On the flip side, Turkey and Brazil are the least exposed to a U.S. trade assault. We remain short many EM exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar including the Malaysian, Korean and Colombian currencies, and reiterate these positions today. Traders who are not positioned this way or have been stopped out should consider reinstating these trades (the full list of our currency recommendations). As for the Mexican peso, it has undershot relative to other EM currencies. We have not been bullish on the MXN versus the USD, though in recent months have recommended going long the MXN versus the BRL and ZAR. These trades have so far produced large losses, but we expect the MXN to recover some of those losses on its crosses. Are Trade Barriers Inflationary Or Deflationary? We consider three scenarios: Chart I-4U.S.: Rising Unit Labor Costs ##br##Warrant Higher Core Inflation 1. Without an exchange rate adjustment (U.S. dollar appreciation), import tariffs and BATs will be inflationary for the U.S. and deflationary for the rest of the world. In this scenario, the prices of imported goods will rise in U.S. dollars and U.S. consumers will end up paying for the tariff/border taxes or exporters will see their U.S. dollar revenues plummet or some combination of the two. U.S. manufacturers will become competitive with higher prices of imported goods, and U.S. employment and resource utilization will mount, heightening domestic inflationary pressures. Even though non-energy imports make up only 11% of U.S. GDP, the inflationary impact of trade protectionism will be pervasive. The reason being that it will tighten the resource utilization in the American economy in general, and the labor market in particular. Currently, the U.S. labor market is tight, wages are accelerating and unit labor costs are rising (Chart I-4). Further strength in demand due to potential fiscal stimulus, import substitution, and a further revival of confidence, will lead to even higher wage inflation and an acceleration in unit labor costs. This, along with rising prices for imported goods, will produce higher inflation. That said, it is likely that American consumers cannot handle a drastic price hike in imported goods, so higher selling prices will entail less demand. For the rest of the world, the same scenario will be very deflationary. Countries with large exports to the U.S. will experience a plunge in their shipments to America, income/profit growth will tank, and domestic demand will dwindle. In aggregate, this scenario will be inflationary for the U.S. and deflationary for the rest of the world - there will be meaningful losses in global output. 2. With "full" exchange rate adjustments, the import tariffs and BATs will be neutral for the U.S. and the rest of the world. But for this to occur, the U.S. dollar has to overshoot. Chart I-5Exchange Rates Have##br## Made A Difference In this scenario, imported goods prices in U.S. dollars will remain the same, given tariffs/BATs are entirely offset by a strong dollar. For exporters, their U.S. dollar revenues will plunge but their currency depreciation will restore the value of shipments to the U.S. in local currency terms (Chart I-5). In brief, the "full" currency depreciation will reflate exporter economies in local currency terms. Given that the rate of tariffs or BATs will likely exceed 15-20%, potential U.S. dollar appreciation will need to be dramatic to produce this scenario. In turn, the considerable dollar appreciation will cap inflationary pressures in the U.S. There will be little, if any, impact on global output. 3. With "partial" exchange rate adjustment (moderate dollar appreciation), the impact of tariffs or BATs will be split between U.S. consumers facing somewhat higher prices for imports and exporters who will suffer declines in revenues in local currency terms, though not as much as in the case of no currency deprecation. Consequently, this scenario will be mildly inflationary for the U.S. and modestly deflationary for the rest of the world. Yet, there will also be a small loss of global output - i.e., global GDP growth will be negatively impacted. Odds favor scenarios two and three - i.e., the greenback is set to appreciate, but it is not clear whether it will rise enough to entirely offset the impact of import tariffs or BATs and preclude decline in global growth. Bottom Line: The inflationary versus deflationary impact of U.S. trade protectionism will depend on exchange rate adjustments and their magnitude - i.e., currencies will move to redistribute the inflationary and deflationary impact of U.S. tariffs and BATs. Overall, the U.S. dollar is set to appreciate meaningfully and probably overshoot before topping out. Go Long EM FX Volatility Given central banks outside the U.S. - both in DM ex-U.S. and EM - are attempting to keep interest rates low, odds favor considerable appreciation in the U.S. dollar, or at least a material rise in exchange rate implied volatility. When monetary authorities control interest rates, the entire burden of adjustment falls on exchange rates. In brief, exchange rates have to move a lot - the U.S. dollar would have to overshoot - to prevent a hit to global output. Investors should consider betting on higher exchange rate volatility. In spite of rising odds of U.S. trade protectionism, EM and DM currency volatility has so far remained surprisingly tame (Chart I-6). We feel there is a trade opportunity here, and today we recommend investors go long select EM exchange rate volatilities. Chart I-7 plots the U.S. trade vulnerability score on the X axis, and exchange rate volatility - more specifically, the standardized 3-month implied currency volatility - on the Y axis. According to Chart I-7, it appears that by historical standards, the current level of volatility of MYR, THB and KRW are low when considering these countries' vulnerability to U.S. trade protectionism. Therefore, investors should go long 3-month implied volatility for the KRW, the MYR and the THB. Chart I-6Exchange Rate Volatility In ##br##Historical Perspective Chart I-7Go Long Currency VOLs in Korea, ##br##Malaysia, And Thailand In addition, the volatility in these Asian currencies will rise and the RMB depreciate further. Bottom Line: To capitalize on a potential rise in global currency volatility, traders should go long three-month volatility in the KRW, the MYR and the THB. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Taking Profits On Turkish Shorts For Now In our December 7, 2016 Special Report 2 we argued that the odds of the lira being vigorously defended by the authorities or some sort of capital controls being implemented in Turkey would increase as the exchange rate approached USD/TRY 3.9. Given the exchange rate has come close to that level, we recommend that traders book profits on our Turkish short positions. The idea is to protect profits and capital in the case of capital controls. It is impossible to know whether the Turkish authorities will opt for capital controls, as it is a political decision. Yet, the risk is non-trivial. Furthermore, the rhetoric from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggests3 he views foreign investors as the main culprits for the nation's current financial debacle. President Erdogan will not shy away from hurting foreign investors via the introduction of capital controls and create the perception of financial stability. The central bank has been very active in recent weeks. Apart from hiking the overnight lending rate this week, it has recently curtailed liquidity injections into the banking system: Chart II-1Turkey: A Decline in Liquidity Provision On January 10, the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) announced that it will place borrowing limits of TRY $22 billion in the Interbank Money Market, effectively limiting the volume of liquidity the central bank provides to commercial banks. Given the lira continued to slide, three days later, the CBT decided to move the interbank money market borrowing limit even lower at TRY $11 billion, effective January 16. That said, since January 10, the CBT has injected TRY $9.5 billion, on average per day, via the overnight window, and TRY $27 billion via the late liquidity window, albeit at higher interest rates than at the overnight window. Hence, the CBT has still injected a meaningful amount of liquidity into the banking system, but it has done so at higher interest rates. All in all, the CBT has curtailed liquidity injections in order to avoid further lira depreciation (Chart II-1, top panel). As a result, interest rates have risen sharply (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Yet, it is not certain that the central bank has tightened liquidity enough. Going forward, there are two main risks: either the CBT's liquidity tightening will be too little, and therefore the lira will continue to plunge, or, there will be considerable liquidity tightening, which will stabilize the exchange rate, but cascade the economy into major recession. Both scenarios are bearish for foreign investors holding Turkish stocks and credit. As we have discussed at length in previous reports, monetary authorities can control either the exchange rate or interest rates, but not both simultaneously. The CBT has been trying unsuccessfully to exercise control over both. To stabilize the exchange rate, the CBT has to drastically curtail its injections of local currency liquidity into the system. In such a case, however, interest rates will surge. Continued attempts to cap interest rates entail a further collapse in the lira's value. The only other option is to introduce capital control (i.e. close the capital account) in order to get control over both interest rates and the currency. Higher interest rates are not politically acceptable, as they will push the economy into deep recession. The reason being that domestic credit growth has been enormous in recent years, and higher interest rates will suffocate the economy. Yet not hiking the policy rate, or allowing interbank interest rates to rise, will all but ensure a deeper crash in the exchange rate. With the industrial sector already showing signs of weakness and the consumer sector flat, a decrease in loan growth will send the already weak economy into recession (Chart II-2). Yet, mushrooming money and credit growth, along with very high inflation in Turkey, justify higher interest rates: Local currency money and credit growth is too strong (Chart II-3). Unless these slow down, the lira will continue to decline. Chart II-2Turkey: Economy Is Heading##br## Into Recession Chart II-3Money/Credit Creation ##br##Has Been Too Rampant Genuine inflationary pressures are too ubiquitous: manufacturing and service sector wages have grown by about 20% over the past 12 months (Chart II-4). In brief, such genuinely high inflation, coupled with still low rates, are bearish for the currency. Robust credit and income/wage growth are supporting import demand, and the current account deficit is wide. This is another bearish factor for the exchange rate. In short, the lira has further room to fall. Remarkably, according to the real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs as well as consumer prices, the lira is still not very cheap, making it vulnerable to further depreciation (Chart II-5) Chart II-4Turkey: 20% Wage Inflation Chart II-5The Turkish Lira Can Get Cheaper Even more surprising, despite a more than 20% depreciation against the U.S. dollar last year, foreign investors' holdings of Turkish equities and government bonds has not dropped significantly (Chart II-6). Finally, bank share prices in local currency terms have risen despite the spike in interest rates (Chart II-7). This entails that this bourse, which is dominated by bank stocks, is not pricing in risks from higher interest rates. Chart II-6Will Foreigners Capitulate On Turkish Assets? Chart II-7Bank Share Prices Have Held Up So Far Investment Recommendations: Currency and fixed income traders should take profits on our short TRY / long USD trade, as well as our short 2-year Turkish bond trade. These have returned a 24% and a 20%, respectively, since January 17, 2011 and June 1, 2016. That said, investors should consider shorting the lira versus the U.S. dollar again if the exchange rate rebounds to TRY/USD 3.5. We recommend equity traders book profits on our short Turkish banks position, which has registered a return of 60% since June 4, 2013. Dedicated EM equity and fixed income investors (both credit and local-currency bonds) should continue to underweight Turkey. Absolute-return and non-dedicated EM investors should minimize their exposure to Turkish financial markets. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, titled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017", dated January 20, 2017, available at www.gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls", dated December 7, 2016 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 President Erdogan, speaking at the 34th meeting with village chiefs at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, said "Everyone already sees and knows the attacks that Turkey has been subjected to also have an economic aspect. There is no difference between a terrorist who has a weapon or bomb in his hand and a terrorist who has dollars, euros and interest in terms of aim. The aim is to bring Turkey to its knees, to take over Turkey and to distance Turkey from its goals. They are using the foreign exchange rate as a weapon". Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Chemicals stocks have significantly underperformed the broad market since our underweight call in 2014, pulled lower by the soaring U.S. dollar and sagging industry productivity. Net earnings revisions have been consistently revised lower over the past few years, and are unlikely to recover without a reflationary push that revives chemical final demand (global real yields are shown inverted, second panel). However, global manufacturing improvement seems likely to accrue mostly to firms outside the U.S. German chemical new orders have surged, and the IFO survey of chemical industry executives signals optimism about the future. U.S. executives appear to be equally confident, but that optimism is misplaced. The American Chemical Council expects U.S. chemical exports to increase 7% a year through 2021. Over $170B is expected to be invested in U.S. chemical manufacturing capacity, representing nearly 25% of the total industry size, which is anticipated to boost the chemical trade surplus to new records. So far, roughly $76B of projects has either been completed or is under construction. If these planned projects all come to fruition, our concern is that new capacity will be idle rather than productive. Capacity is already growing much faster than output, unleashing significant deflationary and productivity-draining forces. We expect chemicals stocks to continue to lag the broad market. Stay clear and please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CHEM - APD, ARG, CF, DOW, EMN, ECL, DD, FMC, IFF, LYB, MON, MOS, PPG, PX, SHW.
Media stocks are on track to set new relative performance highs. Media sales growth is in recovery mode. Consumers have significantly boosted spending on media services, as measured by personal consumption expenditures data. Pricing power has surged in response to demand strength (bottom panel). In turn, strong demand is boosting measures of productivity: our proxy for sales/employment is accelerating toward the double-digit growth zone. Productivity is diverging positively from relative forward earnings expectations, implying there is room for a re-rating. As long as the U.S. economy is growing, media companies should be able to garner an increasing share of consumer wallets. Real spending on media services has been in a steady uptrend for well over a decade, reflecting its ability to continually innovate, only pausing during recessions when consumers are forced to retrench. Rising spending underscores that pricing power gains are sustainable (bottom panel). Stay overweight, and please refer to yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.
Highlights Inflation: Inflation will trend higher this year, but at a measured pace. The impact of a tight labor market and accelerating wage growth will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Even if the economic recovery remains on track, year-over-year core PCE inflation is likely to still be below the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. Yield Curve: With core inflation still low, the Fed will be quick to back away from its rate hike plans if there is any indication that inflation might reverse its uptrend. This supports a bear-steepening of the yield curve and the continued outperformance of TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Spread Product: Excess returns to spread product are not likely to turn deeply negative until core PCE inflation is above 2% and Fed policy becomes more focused on halting inflation than supporting the recovery. We retain a neutral allocation to spread product in our portfolio. Feature Chart 1A Sustainable Recovery After seven years of false starts and disappointments, a durable recovery in inflation is finally under way (Chart 1). The key difference between the current uptrend and prior episodes of rising inflation - such as those witnessed in 2011 and 2014 - is that this time around most labor market indicators suggest the economy is very close to full employment. For this reason the recovery in core inflation is likely to persist, and will eventually settle at a level close to the Fed's 2% target for core PCE. That being said, it is still far too soon for investors to worry about inflation, particularly as it relates to the performance of risk assets. The remainder of this report discusses why the recovery in inflation is likely to be slow moving, and also how the inflation outlook impacts our major fixed income investment calls. Some Near-Term Headwinds There are two reasons why year-over-year measures of core inflation are likely to moderate during the next three months. First, diffusion indexes for both CPI and PCE inflation have recently dipped below the zero line (Chart 2), meaning that more components of each index have decelerating prices than have accelerating prices. Historically, rising year-over-year core inflation has been associated with diffusion indexes above zero. Second, January and February of last year saw incredibly large price increases in both core CPI and core PCE (Chart 3). This means that gains in January and February of this year will also have to be very strong to overcome the large base effect and cause the year-over-year growth rates to move higher. Chart 2Diffusion Indexes Point To Deceleration Chart 3A Large Base Effect In Jan & Feb Now these are only very short term arguments. The base effects will be out of the way by March and diffusion indexes can reverse course very quickly. However, they do suggest that inflation readings are likely to be relatively weak during the next few months. This will be critical for the near-term path of monetary policy and, in our view, makes it likely that the Fed will keep rates steady until the June FOMC meeting. The Phillips Curve Chart 4A Phillips Curve Model Of Inflation Turning to the longer run outlook for inflation, we employ a Phillips curve model of core PCE inflation based on one that Janet Yellen referred to in a speech from September 2015.1 In this framework, the year-over-year change in core PCE inflation is modeled using: Lagged core inflation Inflation expectations (from the Survey of Professional Forecasters) Non-oil import price inflation relative to core PCE inflation Resource utilization (calculated as the difference between the unemployment rate and the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimate of the natural rate of unemployment) The model does an excellent job capturing changes in core PCE inflation since 1990 (Chart 4), and is also useful because it gives us a glimpse of the mental framework that Fed policymakers apply to the task of inflation forecasting. Most importantly, the model allows us to generate inflation forecasts given estimates for inflation expectations, the unemployment rate and the U.S. dollar (which closely tracks relative import prices). For example, in a base case scenario where we assume that inflation expectations and the dollar remain flat, but that the unemployment rate declines from its current level of 4.7% to 4.5% by the end of this year, the model predicts year-over-year core PCE inflation will rise from its current level of 1.65% to 1.87% by November, still below the Fed's 2% target. If we keep the same forecast for a steadily declining unemployment rate but also incorporate a 5% increase in the value of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, then core PCE inflation is projected to rise to 1.76% by November. The stronger dollar means that import prices exert a bit more of a drag. Conversely, if we keep the same unemployment assumption but assume that the U.S. dollar depreciates by 5%, then core PCE inflation is projected to reach 1.98% by November. In this scenario import prices actually provide a slight boost to core inflation. Overall, to create a scenario where core inflation reaches the Fed's target before the end of this year we need to make a fairly optimistic assumption about the unemployment rate and also incorporate a substantial dollar depreciation. In our view, it is more likely that the dollar remains under mild upward pressure this year as the U.S. economy continues to de-couple from the rest of the world. Fiscal policy remains the wildcard, as any protectionist measures implemented by the new U.S. government could lead to import price shocks. Although at first blush any watering-down of trade deals, imposition of tariffs, or protectionist tweaks to the tax code would seem likely to send import prices higher, much depends on how much of the adjustment to the new trade policy occurs through the exchange rate or through prices. This is incredibly hard to determine until the details of any protectionist trade measures are known. Our Global Investment Strategy service explored the potential ramifications of one such trade proposal - a border-adjusted corporate tax - in a Special Report published last week.2 A Bottom-Up Perspective An alternative to the Phillips curve approach is to split core inflation into its major sub-components: shelter, core goods and core services excluding shelter. We can then examine each sub-component separately and identify different macro drivers for each (Chart 5). Shelter has been the strongest contributor to core inflation so far in this recovery and can be modeled using home prices, the rental vacancy rate and household formation (Chart 5, panel 1). Based on these relationships, we expect shelter inflation will remain elevated for quite some time, while our model suggests it is even likely to move a bit higher during the next few months. After briefly seeming like it might rebound earlier last year, the rental vacancy rate has since fallen to new lows while home price appreciation continues at a steady rate of just above 4% per year (Chart 6). Further, the vacancy rate should remain under downward pressure and home prices under upward pressure as long as household formation continues to outpace home construction. The top panel of Chart 6 shows that the difference between housing starts and household formation closely tracks the rental vacancy rate. The vacancy rate rose throughout the 1990s and early 2000s as housing starts outpaced the creation of new households, but starts have not been sufficiently robust so far in this recovery. In addition, housing inventory as a percent of households is near the lows of the early 1990s (Chart 6, bottom panel). This inventory calculation includes the "shadow inventory" from foreclosed homes which has almost normalized back to pre-crisis levels, in any case. Chart 5The Components Of Core CPI Chart 6Drivers Of Shelter Inflation We expect that shelter inflation will remain elevated at least until housing construction starts to outpace the creation of new households, but will moderate once that supply response starts to emerge. Chart 7Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker* ##br##Versus Unemployment Rate Core goods inflation (Chart 5, panel 2) has been, and will continue to be, the major source of deflation in this cycle. A large fraction of core goods are imported and, as such, core goods inflation tends to follow the trend in the U.S. dollar. The bull market in the U.S. dollar will continue to keep a lid on core goods prices, and will limit how quickly inflation can rise. Any meaningful increase in inflation this year is likely to come from the core services excluding shelter component, which historically tends to track fluctuations in wage growth (Chart 5, bottom panel). As we have previously highlighted, the labor market is close to full employment and the relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth remains strong (Chart 7). In this environment, even modest further declines in the unemployment rate should exert meaningful upward pressure on wages. Bottom Line: Inflation will trend higher this year, but at a measured pace. The impact of a tight labor market and accelerating wage growth will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Even if the economic recovery remains on track, year-over-year core PCE inflation is likely to still be below the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. Investment Implications Duration & TIPS Chart 8Leading Inflation Indicators & Breakevens Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates still have upside, although the rate of increase is unlikely to maintain its current rapid pace. As core inflation converges with the Fed's target so should long-dated measures of inflation expectations such as TIPS breakevens. Historically, core PCE inflation close to 2% has coincided with long-dated TIPS breakevens in a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. With the 10-year breakeven currently at 2.05%, we expect it has another 35 to 45 basis points of upside. Measures of pipeline inflation pressure, such as producer prices and the prices paid and supplier deliveries components of the ISM manufacturing survey also point to rising breakevens (Chart 8). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. With rate hike expectations still relatively depressed,3 real yields do not have much downside. Rising breakevens should therefore also pressure long-dated nominal yields higher in the months ahead. While we currently recommend a benchmark duration stance, we are actively looking for an opportunity to shift to below-benchmark duration, as was discussed in last week's report.4 Yield Curve As breakevens and nominal yields move higher the yield curve should also steepen (Chart 9). The strong positive correlation between the slope of the yield curve and TIPS breakevens is the result of the impact of Fed policy on both variables. Chart 9Wider Breakevens Correlated With A Steeper Yield Curve Fed policy tends to be accommodative in the early stages of a recovery, and this causes the yield curve to steepen and breakevens to widen as investors logically expect that easy money will cause both growth and inflation to move higher. In contrast, the yield curve tends to flatten and breakevens tend to fall later in the recovery once Fed policy turns more restrictive. Chart 105-Year Bullet Still Cheap Given that core inflation and TIPS breakevens both remain below the Fed's targets, it is too soon to expect a shift toward restrictive Fed policy. In other words, the Fed will be quick to back away from its rate hike plans if there is any indication that breakevens or inflation might reverse their uptrends. It is only once core inflation and TIPS breakevens have returned to the Fed's targets that the stated purpose of Fed policy will shift from supporting the recovery to snuffing out inflation. To profit from a steeper yield curve we entered a long 5-year bullet short duration-matched 2/10 barbell trade on December 20. So far this trade has returned 14 bps, and the 5-year bullet continues to look very cheap on the curve (Chart 10). Spread Product In prior research we considered the performance of spread product throughout the four phases of the Fed cycle (Chart 11).5 We define the four phases of the Fed cycle as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. Chart 11Stylized Fed Cycle Using a very simple estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate based on potential GDP and a long-run moving average of the funds rate itself, we have found that excess returns to investment grade corporate bonds are highest in phase IV and phase I, when the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (Table 1). However, the key problem with this analysis is that it is very difficult to estimate the equilibrium fed funds rate in real time. As stated above, the estimate used in Table 1 incorporates the CBO's estimate of potential GDP which is frequently revised after the fact. So while we are confident that we are currently in phase I of the Fed cycle, the challenge becomes looking for other indicators that might warn us about the transition from phase I to phase II, where excess returns are much worse. We have found that core PCE inflation is one such indicator. We calculated average monthly excess returns to investment grade corporate bonds when year-over-year core PCE inflation is below 1.5%, between 1.5% and 2%, and between 2% and 2.5% (Table 2). Table 1Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under The Four Phases##br## Of The Fed Cycle (August 1988 To Present) Table 2Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under Different Ranges##br## For Year-Over-Year Core** PCE (August 1988 To Present) The results show that the highest returns occur when inflation is below 1.5%. This should not be surprising since an environment of low inflation is most likely to coincide with phase IV of the Fed cycle. We found mixed results for when inflation is between 1.5% and 2%. In this environment average monthly excess returns are close to zero and a 90% confidence interval places them between -19 bps and +17 bps. This environment likely encompasses phase I of the Fed cycle and the transition into phase II. It is not until core PCE inflation is above 2% that excess returns turn decisively negative. Monthly excess returns average -13 bps in this environment, with a 90% confidence interval of -35 bps to +10 bps. With inflation likely to remain between 1.5% and 2% for the balance of the year, it is too soon to turn all-out bearish on spread product. For the moment we recommend a neutral allocation, but with an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds where valuations are exceedingly tight. Given that inflation is low and Fed policy is accommodative, we would be quick to upgrade both investment grade and high-yield corporates on any near-term sell off. The current uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy also complicates the outlook for spread product. On the one hand, it raises the risk of a near-term sell off if it appears as though some of the more stimulative aspects of Trump's agenda will not be implemented. On the other hand, in addition to headline-grabbing promises of increased infrastructure spending, there are many other policy details that could also have significant market implications. One example would be the elimination of the tax deductibility of corporate interest expenses. Such a provision is currently included in the Republican's plan for corporate tax reform, and would severely diminish supply in the corporate bond market if it is implemented. Bottom Line: Excess returns to spread product are not likely to turn deeply negative until core PCE inflation is above 2% and Fed policy becomes more focused on halting inflation than supporting the recovery. We retain a neutral allocation to spread product in our portfolio. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017", dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 The overnight index swap curve is priced for 54 basis points of rate hikes during the next twelve months. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Media stocks are poised to challenge previous relative performance highs as sales growth reaccelerates. Stay overweight. The materials sector has lagged behind the commodity price rally, a sign of underlying weakness rather than latent strength. Chemicals overcapacity will remain a headwind until U.S. competitiveness improves. Stay clear. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature The broad market has been very strong since the November election. While advance/decline lines have firmed, participation in the rally has been uneven and may be fraying around the edges. For example, the number of groups trading above their 40-week moving average has been diverging negatively from the broad market in the last few months, suggesting diminishing breadth (Chart 1). In fact, the industrials (I) and financials (F) sectors have carried the market since November. Other deep cyclical sectors, such as energy, materials and tech, have mostly matched market performance. The 'IF' rally is based on an expected upgrade to the economic growth plane that matches the surge in various sentiment gauges. If validation does not occur, then the IF rally will become iffy indeed, unless sector breadth improves. Last week we showed that market cap-to-GDP was so far above its long-term average that even if nominal growth boomed at 8% per annum for the next five years this valuation ratio would still not have normalized. That valuation backdrop may not upend additional short-term market momentum, but it is a true measure of just how bullish sentiment has become and should be a critical input to the portfolio construction process, because of its warning about divergences from fundamental supports. Another unconventional sentiment gauge is observed from sub-surface market patterns. Chart 1 shows that the number of defensive groups with a positive 52-week rate of change, in relative terms, is in freefall, plunged to virtually nil. In the last two decades, investors eschewing capital preservation and non-cyclical sectors so aggressively has typically preceded major market peaks (Chart 1). The steep drop in the put/call ratio confirms that euphoria and greed are trumping mistrust and fear. The put/call ratio has recently bounced, but is well below levels that signal investors are accumulating significant portfolio protection. The Fed's tightening bias, contracting U.S. dollar-based financial liquidity amid the strong U.S. dollar all threaten to keep a lid on corporate sector sales prospects. As such, we remain biased toward non-cyclical and consumer sectors, even excluding fiscal policy uncertainty. Chart 2 shows that these areas are in a base-building phase, in relative terms, following their post-election drubbing. We expect momentum to steadily build toward sustained outperformance by midyear. Conversely, a reversal in the 'IF' sectors already appears to be developing, while other capital spending-dependent sectors are unable to gain momentum (Chart 3). This week we highlight both a winning group and an area we expect to disappoint. Chart 1The Rally Is Fraying Around The Edges Chart 2Defensive Base-Building? Chart 3Cyclical Sector Distribution New Highs Ahead For Media While the consumer discretionary sector has a poor track record during Fed tightening cycles, the S&P media sub-component can buck this trend. Media stocks outperformed in the second half of the 1990s and also trended higher in the 1980s while the Fed was tightening. The key was the U.S. dollar (Chart 4). As long as the dollar was strong, media companies sustained a profit advantage over the rest of the corporate sector owing to limited external exposure. A replay is currently playing out, and has the potential to persist for at least the next few quarters based on upbeat cyclical indicators. Media sales growth is in recovery mode. Consumers have significantly boosted spending on media services, as measured by personal consumption expenditures data (Chart 5). Pricing power has surged in response to demand strength (Chart 5, bottom panel). In turn, strong demand is boosting measures of productivity: our proxy for sales/employment is accelerating toward the double-digit growth zone (Chart 5). Productivity is diverging positively from relative forward earnings expectations, implying there is room for a re-rating. As long as the U.S. economy is growing, media companies should be able to garner an increasing share of consumer wallets. Chart 6 shows that real spending on media services has been in a steady uptrend for well over a decade, reflecting its ability to continually innovate, only pausing during recessions when consumers are forced to retrench. Typically, a rise in spending pulls up pricing power (Chart 6). Chart 4Media Stocks Like Dollar Strength Chart 5Sales Are Set To Accelerate Chart 6Secular Strength All of this has spurred a recovery in media cash flow growth (Chart 7, top panel). Relative performance and cash flow move hand-in-hand. Rising cash flows also imply that the media sector can further reduce shares outstanding through buybacks and/or M&A activity (Chart 7), bolstering ROE. The S&P movies & entertainment index has been one of the driving forces behind the broader media index recovery. We upgraded the former to overweight after the vicious selloff related to Disney's ESPN woes and the takeover saga at Viacom had pushed the index to an undervalued extreme. While slightly early, this upgrade is now paying off (Chart 8). The expectations hurdle remains surmountable. Both forward earnings and sales growth estimates are deeply negative (Chart 8), reflecting the well-known cooling in cable subscriber growth. But even here, there is room for potential upside surprises. Consumer spending on recreation has been growing at a low single-digit clip, but the surge in consumer confidence, courtesy of rising wage growth and a positive wealth effect from rising real estate and financial asset prices, should support increased discretionary consumer spending. The message from the jump in the ISM services index is bullish for recreation spending (Chart 9, second panel). Chart 7Shareholder-Friendly Chart 8Cheap With Low Expectations Chart 9Still Early In The Recovery In turn, faster spending would support ongoing pricing power gains (Chart 9). The industry is already sporting one of the most robust selling price increases of all that we track, as advertising rate inflation is growing anew. Importantly, real outlays on cable services have recovered after a steep decline (Chart 9), suggesting that the drag from disappointing cable subscriber growth and cord cutting may be easing. Less churn implies more pricing power. Content cost inflation also remains under wraps. The implication is that the fundamental forces to propel a retest of previous relative performance highs are in place. Technical conditions are also sending a bullish signal. Cyclical momentum, as measured by the 52-week rate of change, is on the cusp of breaking into positive territory (Chart 9), while the share price ratio has already crossed decisively above key resistance at its 40-week moving average. A dual breakout would confirm a new bull trend. Bottom Line: Media stocks have good odds of retesting previous relative performance highs as discretionary consumer spending perks up. Stay overweight the overall media group, and the S&P movies and entertainment index in particular. Chemical Stocks: A Toxic Portfolio Blend The commodity price recovery has not carried over into the S&P materials sector, as relative performance has been moving laterally for much of the last twelve months. Rather than view this as an opportunity to play catch up, the more likely outcome is that the sector has missed its chance to outperform. In fact, downside risks have intensified. The strong U.S. dollar will exact a toll on U.S. exporters, particularly if emerging markets and China do not experience accelerating final demand. While there has been a massive amount of stimulus in China over the past 18 months, the thrust of that impulse is fading. Fiscal spending growth has dropped sharply and the authorities trying to cool rampant real estate speculation. The yield curve remains flat (Chart 10), as local funding costs rise on the back of the authorities attempt to mitigate capital outflows, and loan demand remains weak. Persistent weakness in the Chinese currency may reflect a lack of confidence in local returns, i.e. sub-par growth. All of that argues against expecting a major impetus to raw materials demand, at a time when the materials sector total wage bill is inflating more aggressively. Our Cyclical Macro Indicator for the materials sector is hitting new lows (Chart 10), heralding earnings underperformance, underscoring that below-benchmark allocations remain appropriate. The S&P chemicals group represents for than 70% of the overall materials market cap. It has underperformed since its peak and our underweight call in 2014, pulled lower by the soaring U.S. dollar and sagging industry productivity (Chart 11). Net earnings revisions have been consistently revised lower over the past few years, and are unlikely to recover without a reflationary push (global real yields are shown inverted, second panel, Chart 11) that revives chemical final demand. Analysts have latched on to the firming in global purchasing manager survey sentiment, aggressively pushing up sales growth expectations in recent months (Chart 12). Clearly, manufacturing sector expansion is expected to reverse the contraction in chemical output growth (Chart 12). Chart 10Higher PMIs Are Not Enough Chart 11Higher Yields Are A Bad Omen Chart 12Expectations Are Inflated However, this may be yet another case of analysts chronically overestimating the industry's earnings power. Global manufacturing improvement seems likely to accrue mostly to firms outside the U.S. Chart 13 shows that chemicals relative performance is heavily influenced by the U.S. dollar. Valuations and sentiment are tightly linked with chemical export growth (Chart 13), as the latter represent 14% of total U.S. exports. The U.S. dollar surge is diverting orders away from U.S. manufacturers: German chemical new orders have surged, and the IFO survey of chemical industry executives signals optimism about the future (Chart 14). Chart 13The Dollar Is Hurting The U.S. ... Chart 14... But Helping Foreign Competitors U.S. executives appear to be equally confident, but that optimism is misplaced. The American Chemical Council expects U.S. chemical exports to increase 7% a year through 2021. Over $170B is expected to be invested in U.S. chemical manufacturing capacity, representing nearly 25% of the total industry size, which is anticipated to boost the chemical trade surplus to new records. So far, roughly $76B of projects has either been completed or is under construction. If these planned projects all come to fruition, our concern is that new capacity will be idle rather than productive. The industry is in the crosshairs of anti-globalization and protectionism, and a strong U.S. dollar and rising domestic cost structures threaten to reduce competitiveness. Chemical imports are a fairly large portion of sales, rendering profitability vulnerable should an import-tax ever be introduced. From a cyclical standpoint, deflationary pressures are already very acute. Chemical capacity is growing much faster than production, warning that pricing power will be under significant pressure (Chart 15). Many chemical products are destined for interest rate-sensitive end markets such as autos, underscoring that a Fed tightening cycle is a headwind. While capacity expansion was planned when interest rates and feedstock costs were expected to remain at rock bottom levels for the foreseeable future, this is no longer the case. Chemical companies can either use natural gas (ethane) or oil (naphtha) as a primary feedstock. U.S. production is largely ethane-based, while global capacity is geared to naphtha. Rising U.S. natural gas prices are undermining the U.S. input cost advantage (Chart 16). Chart 15Persistent Deflation Pressures Chart 16U.S. Cost Structures Are Unattractive Increased capacity has also put significant upward pressure on wage costs, as our proxy for the total wage bill is rising at a high single-digit rate (Chart 16). With capital spending slated to stay robust in the coming years, it will likely continue to take a larger share of sales, impairing profit margins. While the planned merger between heavyweights Dow Chemical and Dupont may eventually help to rationalize costs, this is a necessary but not sufficient step in the face of a loss of global market share. Without accelerating sales, U.S. chemical makers will be hard pressed to improve productivity sufficiently to reverse the slide in relative forward earnings estimates. Bottom Line: The S&P materials sector hasn't been able to outperform during a period of improving global manufacturing activity, raising doubts about its performance potential when global output growth inevitably slows. Part of this reflects the challenging outlook for the sector heavyweight chemicals index, and we recommend staying underweight both. The symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CHEM - APD, ARG, CF, DOW, EMN, ECL, DD, FMC, IFF, LYB, MON, MOS, PPG, PX, SHW. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Dear client, This week, we are sending you an abbreviated version of our weekly bulletin as we are also publishing a piece written by our colleague Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President for our Global Investment Strategy service. This report, titled “U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017”, deals in great details with the Republican tax plans. In this report, Peter analyses the economic and financial market implications of the plan and concludes it is likely to be an additional support to the dollar bull market if it gets implemented in full, but not one without repercussions. I trust you will find this report very interesting and relevant. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Feature After continuing to sell off, the dollar regained some composure toward the end of the week. Not only did an elevated CPI print for December contribute to this rally, but so did Fed Chair Janet Yellen's comment that the U.S. economy was getting closer to the FOMC objectives and that the Fed was now closer to being capable of raising rates multiple times a year between now and 2019. Chart 1Froth Had Dissipated##br## From Treasury Yields Additionally, we had been expecting a correction in the dollar as we worried that U.S. bond yields would retrace some of their ascent. The pullback materialized and U.S. bond yields traded in line with our fair value estimate earlier this week (Chart 1). This meant that much of the froth in the dollar had dissipated. Based on these developments, is it time to buy the dollar again? On a cyclical basis, the dollar will make new highs in 12-18 months. However, short-term considerations remain complex. There are two President Trump out there: "Good Trump" and "Bad Trump". Good Trump is a president that talks about deregulation and tax cuts as well as various stimulus measures. This is the president that turbo charged the dollar after the election on hopes of a stronger U.S. economy. Bad Trump is the campaign Trump, the populist president that wants to revive protectionism and that promotes acrimonious international relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world, China in particular. The markets had expected Good Trump to be the first Trump to emerge, yet, the new president seems to have elected to present his Bad Trump profile first. In a way, this makes sense. Trump is focusing on the more economically painful parts of his program, campaign promises wanted by his electorate. This way, Good Trump can swoosh in and save the day by helping the economy closer to the mid-term election in late 2018, in the aim of solidifying the Republican control of Congress. With the 10-year yield back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is not pricing in any flare up of tensions with China, nor any deflationary shock that could emanate from such tensions (Chart 2). Investors were hoping that the talks of stimulus and deregulation would come first, instead they are getting a president that bullies corporations and build up tensions in Asia. The deflationary nature of the tension comes from the reality that while the Chinese economy has improved, China remains handicapped by a large debt load and a low demand for credit. It is ill equipped to handle foreign shocks. Moreover, the easing in Chinese monetary conditions will soon lose steam. Chinese monetary conditions eased because Chinese real rates fell from nearly 12% to -2% on the back of a powerful rebound in the Chinese producer prices (PPI) (Chart 3). This improvement in PPI was itself a byproduct of a rebound in commodity inflation. However, this rebound is soon behind us. Commodity prices troughed in Q1 2016, and have recently slowed their pace of ascent. This means that in the coming months, Chinese PPI will rollover as well and Chinese real borrowing costs will rise again (Chart 4). Chart 2All Must ##br##Go Well Chart 3Can Chinese Monetary ##br##Conditions Improve Further? Chart 4The Commodity Rebound Was A Key Factor##br## Behind The Chinese PPI Rebound This could prove problematic for China where loan demand remains very tepid, pointing to a potential down leg in Chinese industrial activity (Chart 5). This also raises the specter of renewed devaluation pressures on the Chinese yuan, as this would create another valve to alleviate deflationary pressures in the Chinese economy (Chart 6). Further RMB weakness would be welcomed neither by Trump, nor by the markets. Chart 5Chinese Loan Demand ##br##Remains Moribund Chart 6The RMB Is Another Relief Value For##br## Chinese Deflationary Pressures Taking all these factors into account, we remain warry of betting on a strong dollar against the euro and the yen in the coming weeks, at least not until bonds become cheap on our fair value gauge, reflecting these Chinese deflationary risks and a higher geopolitical risk premium. Chart 7EUR/GBP Is Misaligned##br## With Fundamentals Also, this means that we could see a dichotomy emerge between the narrow dollar (DXY) and the broad dollar. While lower bond yields are supportive of the euro and the yen, they do very little for EM and commodity currencies. In fact, EM and commodity currencies are highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and will be vulnerable to any flare up of tensions between China and the U.S., especially after currencies like the AUD and the CAD had already rallied 5% and 4% respectively since the last week of 2016. Thus, we would recommend investors favor risk-off currencies like the euro, the Swiss franc, and the yen at the expense of the AUD, NZD, CAD, and NOK. For the GBP, last week, we published an optimistic take on the British economy. We are looking to short EUR/GBP as rate differentials are still widely bearish of that cross (Chart 7). However, we warned that in anticipation of the actual triggering of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the GBP could come under duress. A risk-off event would only strengthen this case. Thus, we remain confident in our preferred strategy to short EUR/GBP once it hits 0.93. Bottom Line: The dollar correction is advanced but is now likely to become more differentiated. Tensions created by a protectionist and bellicose Trump are likely to push bonds into expensive territory. While the attending bond rally could support the euro, the Swiss franc, and the yen against the dollar, these same tensions are likely to support the dollar against EM and commodity currencies. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades