Economy

Special Report

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

Special Report

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

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

Highlights China's mini-cycle has peaked, which has raised concerns among global investors that China may return to below-trend growth over the coming year, similar to what occurred in 2015. In our view, the severe slowdown in the Chinese economy in 2015 was due to overly tight monetary policy coupled with a severely weak external demand environment. A monetary conditions approach has done an excellent job of predicting industrial activity in China over the past several years. While monetary policy has tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, none of the monetary conditions indexes that we track have come close to returning to 2015 levels. In short, an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the Chinese economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Feature Last week's report was replaced by a Special Report prepared by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President of our Geopolitical Strategy team.1 The report presented a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress, and outlined how stepped up reform efforts in China are likely over the coming year, and beyond. By "reforms", our geopolitical team specifically means deleveraging in the financial sector accompanied by a more intense anti-corruption campaign focused on the shadow-banking sector, as well as ongoing restructuring in the industrial sector. The implications of the "reform reboot" scenario presented in last week's report are negative for emerging markets (EM) and other plays on China's industrial sector (such as industrial metals). We agree that a "status quo" scenario of no significant reforms is highly unlikely given that President Xi has succeeded in amassing tremendous political capital and that he has an agenda for reform. But the intensity of reforms pursued over the coming year will have to be closely monitored by policymakers, to avoid a repeat of the significant slowdown that occurred in 2014/2015. As such, the view of BCA's China Investment Strategy service is that the reform efforts over the coming year will be structured at a pace that is sufficient to avoid a meaningful deceleration in China's industrial sector, even though the momentum of China's "mini" economic cycle of the past two years has very likely peaked. However, the potential for a brisk pace of reforms to cause a more acute decline in industrial activity is a risk to our view that the slowdown in China's economy is likely to be benign and controlled. Monitoring reform progress is likely to be a key theme for this publication over the coming year. Over the nearer term, the potential impact of reform efforts is not the only risk to the economy, as many market participants appear to be worried that the peak in China's mini-cycle presages a destabilizing decline in economic activity. This week's report is the second of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015,2 when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In Part II we focus on monetary policy, and outline how the monetary environment remains stimulative despite a significant rise in corporate bond yields over the past year. China's Monetary Policy Stance: A Brief Review Chart 1 presents the one-year policy lending rate over the past decade, and highlights the four distinct phases that have prevailed since the global financial crisis in 2008: Chart 1A Brief Review Of China's Monetary Policy Stance A long period of significant easing that began during the Great Recession and lasted until late-2010 A material rate tightening cycle that began in late-2010 and ended in mid-2012 A half-reversal of the 2011/2012 rate cycle, which happened quickly in the summer of 2012 and was followed by a long pause until late-2014, and A significant series of rate cuts over the course of 2015, followed by a 2-year pause at current levels. We contend that policymakers were too timid in responding to economic weakness in China at the end of the third monetary policy phase highlighted in Chart 1, and that this hesitation magnified the impact of the serious deterioration in China's external demand environment that we discussed in Part I of this report. Chart 2Monetary Conditions Predict ##br##Chinese Industrial Activity Of course, in a large, trade-sensitive, economy like that of China, interest rates are not the only determinant of the degree of monetary accommodation. In order to capture the effects of the exchange rate and other factors affecting the efficacy of monetary policy, we have tended to show a Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) as a stand-in for the policy stance. As shown in Chart 2, the Bloomberg MCI has done an excellent job of leading industrial activity in China over the past several years, particularly during the mini-cycle of the past two years. While the MCI appears to have peaked early this year, it remains well above (i.e. more accommodative) the levels reached in mid-2015 when policymakers finally became serious about easing monetary conditions. Looking Forward Chart 3 presents a few alternative MCIs for China alongside Bloomberg's measure. Analysts tend to employ a variety of approaches when calculating monetary conditions indexes, but the real interest rate and the real effective exchange rate almost always feature prominently. Of the three alternative measures, Citigroup's MCI is the most bearish, as it includes the year-over-year growth rate of M2 which has recently languished. The remaining two measures are BCA calculations, one that deflates interest rates using producer prices, and one that uses core consumer prices. Both of our measures employ an equal split between the real interest rate and the exchange rate. Chart 3 highlights that all four MCIs have either peaked or are now falling, suggesting that a tightening in financial conditions earlier this year has somewhat reduced the degree of monetary accommodation to the economy. However, there are three key points to consider when judging the likely impact of monetary tightening on China's economy over the coming 6-12 months: None of the MCIs shown in Chart 3 have returned to their 2015 low, implying that the policy tightening that has occurred over the past year is not likely to cause Chinese industrial activity to crash in over the coming 6-12 months. Most of the appreciation in the RMB this year has occurred versus the dollar, not against the euro or in trade-weighted terms (Chart 4). In fact, in trade-weighted the RMB remains 6.5% below where it was in August 2015 prior to the currency devaluation. This highlights that the recent appreciation largely reflects dollar weakness, rather than policy-induced strength in the RMB. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Have Not Returned##br## To 2015 Levels Chart 4Recent RMB Appreciation##br## Reflects Dollar Weakness Average lending rates have only increased approximately 40 bps over the past year, in comparison to the 200 bps of easing that occurred from 2014 to 2016 (Chart 5). In real terms (when deflated by core consumer prices), average interest rate have barely risen at all this year. The still modest rise in average lending rates is an important consideration, because it contrasts with the rise in Chinese bond yields, both in the government and corporate sectors. For example, Chart 6 shows that corporate bond yields have risen by 160 bps since late-2016 and are 25 bps higher than they were in early-2015. Chart 5Average Lending Rates ##br##Have Risen Only Modestly Chart 6Corporate Bond Yields##br## Have Tightened Materially But our view is that average lending rates are a more important driver of debt service payments for China's non-financial sector. In fact, Table 1 highlights that while corporate bond financing is a growing component of Chinese private social financing, it is still quite small. The table presents a breakdown of adjusted social financing, which highlights that the sum of local currency loans, foreign currency loans in RMB, trust and entrusted loans equals roughly 85% of total social financial excluding equity issuance. Corporate bonds, by contrast, account for only about 10%, suggesting that the economic impact of the rise in bond yields this year will be relatively small. Table 1Corporate Bonds Account For A Small Percent Of China's Social Financing Investment Implications We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the acceleration in the Chinese economy that began in mid-2015 has likely peaked (Chart 7), ending the upswing of this "mini" economic cycle. Chart 7A Stylized View Of China's Recent The framework illustrated in Chart 7 presented three distinct scenarios for China over the coming 6-12 months: A re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, A benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into the "stable" growth range, and An uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). In our view, the Chinese economy in early-2015 began to operate below the "stable" growth range shown in Chart 7, owing to a "double whammy" of excessively tight monetary conditions and a synchronized global downturn. While our research suggests that China's export growth will moderate over the coming year and that monetary conditions have tightened somewhat, the magnitude of these changes are not sufficiently large to return the Chinese economy back to 2015-like conditions. To us, this is consistent with the second scenario presented above. From an absolute equity perspective, this conclusion is positive for Chinese stock prices. Chart 8 highlights that the Li Keqiang index correlates fairly well with the growth in earnings for the MSCI China index ex technology; a moderate decline in the pace of growth in China's industrial sector would blunt the earnings growth of these firms, but not enough to cause an outright contraction. The combination of positive ex-tech earnings growth and very cheap valuation (Chart 9) suggests that the absolute uptrend in Chinese ex-technology stocks that began at the beginning of 2016 is likely to continue. Chart 8Ex-Tech EPS Growth Will Moderate, ##br##But Not Contract Chart 9Excluding Technology, ##br##China Is Extraordinarily Cheap In relative terms, the picture is somewhat cloudier, although for now we would continue to favor the China MSCI index versus global and emerging market stocks. Chart 10 highlights that Chinese equities have outperformed global stocks even when excluding tech companies, although it is clear that most of the recent outperformance is due to the IT sector. On the earnings front, while we expect Chinese ex-tech earnings growth to moderate over the coming year, this is also true of overall U.S. equities (Chart 11). Finally, Chart 12 highlights that while Chinese technology firms are richly priced vs their global counterparts, the multi-year relative outperformance trend has been fundamentally-driven, a situation that does not appear to be threatened by a slowdown in China's industrial sector (given the largely domestic & consumer orientation of Chinese technology firms). Chart 10China Is Beating Global,##br## Even Excluding Technology Chart 11U.S. Earnings Growth##br## Is Set To Moderate Chart 12China's Tech Rally Is ##br##Fundamentally-Driven Bottom Line: The economic momentum of China's 2-year mini-cycle has probably peaked, but an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?", dated November 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

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

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

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Rising oil prices, a weakened U.S. dollar, ongoing global oil producer discipline and still compelling valuations argue for maintaining an above benchmark allocation in the S&P energy index. Wide crack spreads, sticky price hikes and sustained inventory drawdowns are a harbinger of more gains in the S&P refiners sub-index. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities plowed higher last week, as earnings growth continues to surprise to the upside and synchronized global growth alongside fiscal easing remain the key macro themes. Over 81% of the companies have now reported earnings, with EPS growth pushing the Q3 blended figure to 8.0% on the back of 5.2% revenue growth. Last quarter's margin expansion is in line with the S&P 500's historical operating leverage of 40%.1 In the context of synchronized global growth macro backdrop, we have been adding deep cyclical exposure to our portfolio at the expense of defensives over the past few months, participating in the SPX's march higher. A simple manufacturing versus services indicator, comparing ISM manufacturing with ISM non-manufacturing, suggests that not only are there more gains ahead for the broad market, but cyclicals will also continue to outpace defensives (Chart 1). When the most cyclical part of the U.S. economy is flexing its muscle, typically a capex upcycle sustains the self-reinforcing earning upsurge. In mid-October2 we posited that such an investment boom will be the dominant macro theme next year. While this theme continues to fly under the radar, our confidence of a durable and broad-based capital spending cycle notched higher following the recent Q3 real GDP print. Table 2 shows the evolution of real GDP, real capex growth and real capex contribution to real GDP growth over the last year. CEOs are voting with their feet and making the longer-term oriented investment decisions as animal spirits are lifting, despite a very slow moving Washington, D.C. Chart 1Most Cyclical Part Of##br## U.S. Economy Is Flexing Its Muscle Table 2Evolution Of GDP ##br##And Capex Growth Chart 2 depicts these data on a longer time horizon. There are high odds that capital outlays will remain upbeat if BCA's view of a tax bill passage materializes3 in the next 6 months with some of the money making its way toward investment, sustaining the virtuous cycle. Were the GOP's tax plan to pass and allow businesses "to immediately write off the full cost of new equipment", then almost certainly CEOs will embark on a capex binge. Importantly, similarly to the synchronized global growth macro backdrop, there is a synchronous capex upcycle brewing. The top panel of Chart 3 shows our equal-weighted real gross fixed capital formation composite of 23 DM and EM countries using national accounts alongside our diffusion index. Our Global Capex Composite has stabilized, but more importantly the diffusion index (percentage of countries with an improving year-over-year capex) is showcasing a coordinated global capex recovery. Chart 2Capex... Chart 3...Is Growing Globally True, DM capex is more advanced than EM capex, but the V-shaped recovery in corporate profitability nearly guarantees a pickup in capital outlays in the coming quarters (middle and bottom panel, Chart 3). Another way we show this simultaneous global capex upcycle is the color coded map in Table 3, with green denoting an expansion in year-over-year real capex, and red a contraction. Green is taking over the table (please click here if you would like to receive this table with more details from our client services department). Table 3Synchronized Global Capex Growth Encouragingly, this is not only a national accounts reported capex phenomenon, but is also borne out by stock market reported data. Using Datastream-compiled stock market reported data, Charts 4, 5, & 6 show capital expenditures growth around the globe covering a number of DM and EM. Similar to our mid-October analysis, we advance operating earnings by one year, and investment should follow profit growth higher in the coming quarters underpinning the virtuous cycle. Chart 4Virtuous... Chart 5...Global Capex... Chart 6...Upcycle The implication of this synchronous capex growth backdrop is that high operating leverage deep cyclicals will dominate defensives next year and we reiterate our recent preference of cyclical versus defensive sectors. This week we update a deep cyclical sector we continue to overweight, and highlight one niche subcomponent. A Burst Of Energy? We lifted the S&P energy index to an overweight stance on July 10, and in Q3 the energy complex bested the market by over 200bps. While this was a timely upgrade, we still believe there is more room for additional relative gains in the coming months. All the reasons we cited during our summer upgrade call4 have started to move in our favor, signaling more upside ahead. Namely, the U.S. dollar remains down significantly for the year (Chart 7) and, irrespective of future moves, it should continue to goose energy sector profits owing to the positive impact on the underlying commodity. Importantly, energy producers are a levered play on oil prices and the latter have jumped roughly $11/bbl to $55/bbl or ~24% since July 10th, but energy stocks are up only 7% in absolute terms (Chart 8). Given BCA's still sanguine crude oil market view, we expect a significant catch up phase in energy equity prices into 2018. Chart 7Weakened U.S. Dollar Is Bullish Energy Chart 8Catch Up Phase On the supply front, both the overall U.S. oil & gas and horizontal only rig count peaked in late July, and Cushing and OECD oil stocks are now contracting. As global oil inventories get whittled down and OPEC stays disciplined oil prices will remain well bid. Tack on the synchronized global growth macro backdrop, and the upshot is that global oil demand will continue to grind higher. The implication is that the relative share price advance is still in the early innings (Chart 9). Relative valuations have ticked up in the neutral zone according to our composite relative Valuation Indicator, but on a number of metrics value remains extremely compelling in the energy space. On a price to book, prices to sales and price to cash flow basis energy is trading at a 40%, 30% and 5% discount, respectively, to the broad market. The recent carnage in EPS skews the results with the energy sector trading at a 47% forward P/E premium to the overall market (Chart 10). Our Technical Indicator has also tentatively troughed. Historically once the one standard deviation below the historical mean level gives way, a sling shot recovery ensues (Chart 10). Finally, the budding recovery in energy earnings remains intact and our EPS model heralds additional growth in the coming quarters on the back of solid industry pricing power and sustained global oil producer discipline (Chart 11). Chart 9Oil Inventory Drawdown = Buy Energy Stocks Chart 10Compelling Valuation Backdrop Chart 11EPS Model Is Still Flashing Green Adding it up, firming oil prices, the depreciated U.S. dollar, continued global energy producer restraint and still compelling valuations argue for maintain an above benchmark allocation in the S&P energy index. Bottom Line: We reiterate our early-July S&P energy sector upgrade to overweight. Refiners Are Heating Up In the summer we lifted the S&P oil & gas refining & marking index to neutral from underweight locking in impressive gains and that tilted our overall S&P energy sector exposure to above benchmark.5 Subsequently in early-September we further augmented exposure in this pure play energy downstream index to overweight.6 Since then, relative performance is up over 8%. Is it time to book profits? The short answer is not yet. While these relative gains are impressive in such a short time span, we are staying patient before monetizing them, as leading indicators of refiners' profits continue to flash green. Our thesis in September was that the Hurricane Harvey catastrophe presented a trading opportunity from the long side for the S&P refining index. Not only did production get substantially curtailed, but also, as a result, inventories gave way. The longer the disruption, the sweeter the profit spot for the refining industry, as only higher industry selling prices could bring the market back to equilibrium. Indeed, the Brent/WTI crude oil spread, a great proxy for refining margins, recently vaulted to $8/bbl, the highest since early-2015 (Chart 12). Refining margins and gasoline prices also jumped to multi-year highs. While the industry has recovered since the hurricane devastation and brought production back online, selling price inflation is proving sticky, which is a boon for industry margins and thus profits. Already, this earnings season has seen all of the index's component stocks report double-digit margin expansion; the sell-side community has clearly taken notice and earnings revisions have spiked higher (Chart 13). Looking closer at the inventory backdrop, the refined product drawdown is ongoing. From the early 2017 peak, gasoline and distillate fuel supplies have collapsed by roughly 100mn bbl (inventories shown inverted, top panel, Chart 13). In particular, gasoline stocks are now contracting at 5% per annum (inventories shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 13). Historically, industry inventory accumulation has been weighing on relative share prices and vice versa. Evidently, the market has yet to reach an equilibrium, which is a boon for refining profits and relative share prices. Finally, following the collapse in refined product net exports as refiners focused on primarily fulfilling domestic demand, net exports have jumped back to all-time highs near 3mn bbl/day. This represents an over 6mn bbl/day swing in net exports over the past decade (bottom panel, Chart 14). A weak U.S. currency coupled with the higher prices oil products fetch abroad should continue to underpin exports and represent another sizable avenue for industry profits. Chart 12Too Early To##br## Lock In Profits Chart 13Decreasing Refined Product ##br##Stocks Are A Boon For Refiners Chart 14Export Relief ##br##Valve Reopened Netting it out, it is still too soon to take profits on the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index. Refined product inventories continue to fall, crack spreads are wide and industry price hikes are sticky. This is a fertile profit margin and EPS backdrop, underscoring that the path of least resistance is higher for relative share price, at least until an equilibrium is reached. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Operating Leverage To The Rescue?," dated April 17, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?," dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?," dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Ibid. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Goldilocks," dated September 11, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a time when both sides of the Fed's dual mandate are in conflict. The lagging nature of inflation explains why it has failed to rise even though the unemployment rate has fallen below NAIRU. U.S. growth should surprise on the upside over the coming quarters, with or without the passage of tax legislation. This should enable the Fed to raise rates four times by end-2018, which should give the dollar a boost. Higher oil prices will prop up the Canadian dollar. Brexit uncertainty will continue to weigh on the U.K. economy, but the pound has already priced in much of the bad news. Feature Chart 1The Dual Mandate Headache Jay Powell: You're Hired! Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a pivotal time. Under Janet Yellen's leadership, the Fed began running down its balance sheet. For all intents and purposes, that part of the normalization process has been put on autopilot. In contrast, the question of how much higher interest rates need to go remains up in the air. In normal times, the Fed would be guided by its dual mandate, which calls for maximum sustainable employment and low inflation. The Fed's predicament is that the two sides of this mandate are currently in conflict: While the unemployment rate has fallen more than the FOMC anticipated at the start of the year and is below the Fed's estimate of full employment, inflation has dipped further below the Fed's 2% target (Chart 1). Why Has Inflation Been So Low? There are four competing explanations for why inflation remains stubbornly low. The first is that the headline unemployment rate understates the true amount of labor market slack. There was considerable merit to this argument a few years ago, but it seems less plausible today. While some auxiliary measures of slack, such as involuntary part-time employment and the share of the working-age population that is out of the labor force but wants a job, are still elevated relative to pre-recession levels, others such as the job openings rate and household perceptions of job availability have reached levels consistent with an overheated economy (Table 1). Taken together, the U.S. labor market appears to be close to full employment. Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles The second explanation for why higher inflation has failed to materialize accepts the centrality of the unemployment rate as an accurate summary measure of labor market slack, but posits that NAIRU - the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - is lower than widely believed. NAIRU cannot be observed directly, so in principal this argument could be true. That said, it is worth noting that official estimates of NAIRU are already well below their long-term average (Chart 2). While certain factors such as the aging of the workforce have reduced NAIRU - older people tend to change jobs less frequently, which reduces frictional unemployment - other factors have likely raised it. These include automation, globalization, and the opioid crisis, all of which have probably led to higher structural unemployment. The third explanation for why inflation has failed to rise in the face of falling unemployment is that the Phillips curve has broken down. Whether they realize it or not, people who make this argument are implicitly assuming that NAIRU no longer matters - that central banks can drive the unemployment rate down as far as they wish and not worry about runaway inflation. If true, this would seemingly revoke the law of supply and demand because it would imply that an economy can stay perpetually overheated without wages or prices ever having to rise. Alas, no such free lunch exists. Chart 3 shows that the relationship between wage growth and unemployment remains intact. The so-called "wage-Phillips curve" tends to steepen sharply once unemployment falls below 5%. The recent acceleration in average hourly wages, median weekly earnings, and the Employment Cost Index all suggest that we have reached the steep part of the Phillips curve (Chart 4). Chart 2NAIRU Estimates Are Historically Low Chart 3U.S. Economy Has Moved Into ##br##The 'Steep' Part Of The Phillips Curve Chart 4U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Higher wage growth will push up real household disposable income, leading to more consumer spending. With the output gap now effectively closed, firms will find themselves running into more supply-side constraints, forcing them to raise prices. Just as in the past, "this time is different" explanations for why inflation will stay depressed, such as the overhyped "Amazon effect," will be proven wrong.1 This leads us to the fourth - and in our view, most cogent - explanation for why inflation has been low, which is that the Phillips curve has simply been dormant. History suggests that inflation is a highly lagging indicator (Chart 5). A variety of technical factors - ranging from a steep drop in cell phone data charges to a dip in prescription drug prices - have depressed inflation this year. As these wear off, inflation will slowly pick up. The recent increase in the ISM prices-paid component, along with producer price indices around the world, suggest that both domestic and external inflationary pressures are intensifying. Consistent with this, the NY Fed's "underlying inflation gauge" has reached an 11-year high of 2.8% (Chart 6). Chart 5Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 6Fed Sees Underlying Inflation Gathering Steam The Cost Of Waiting Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree to which inflation will accelerate over the next few years. With that in mind, many commentators have argued for a go-slow approach. "Wait to see the whites of inflation's eyes" as Larry Summers has colorfully stated. This perspective is not unreasonable, but we think most FOMC members will ultimately reject it. This is mainly because inflation is a highly lagging indicator. By the time it is obvious that inflation is getting out of hand, it is often too late to react. The unemployment rate is already half a percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. If the labor market continues to firm up, the Fed will eventually have no choice but to tighten monetary policy by enough to bring the unemployment rate back up to NAIRU. This means that rates may have to rise above their neutral level for a considerable period of time. Such an outcome could lead to a significant re-rating of risk asset prices. It would also damage the economy. The U.S. has never avoided a recession in the post-war period whenever the three-month average level of the unemployment rate has risen by more than 0.3 percentage points (Chart 7). Chart 7What Goes Down Must Come Up? Already Behind The Curve The Fed has arguably already fallen behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. As our models predicted, the easing in U.S. financial conditions earlier this year is helping to turbocharge growth (Chart 8). Real GDP rose by 3.0% in the third quarter. Growth would have been even higher had residential investment not fallen by 6% in the wake of the hurricanes. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 4.5% in Q4. Chart 8U.S.: Easier Financial Conditions Are Boosting Growth Core capital goods orders are increasing at a solid pace. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence rose to a 17-year high in October. Initial jobless claims have fallen to a four-decade low. Citi's economic surprise index has spiked into positive territory and Goldman's is nearing record highs (Chart 9). Given the recent acceleration in growth, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.5% by the end of next year - well below the Fed's current end-2018 projection of 4.1%. If Congress delivers on its pledge to reduce corporate and personal income taxes, this would represent a further modest upward surprise to near-term growth prospects. Fiscal policy remains a wildcard. The "Tax Cut and Jobs Act" released by the House of Representatives yesterday seeks to reduce taxes by about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, with two-thirds of that amount consisting of lower business taxes (Table 2). Negotiations with the Senate are likely to result in a scaling back of the magnitude of the cuts and a shifting of more of the benefits towards middle-class earners. Among other things, this probably means the proposed phase-out of the estate tax will be scrapped. Most empirical estimates suggest that the growth benefits from the legislation will be modest. Nevertheless, if taxes are cut early next year, as we think is likely, this will put a greater impetus for the Fed to raise rates. Chart 9U.S. Economy Surprising On The Upside Table 2U.S.: How Much Will The Tax Plan Cost? Aging Bull Stocks are likely to weather the impact of Fed hikes as long as rates are rising in an environment of stronger GDP growth. Chart 10 shows that equities tend to do well when the ISM manufacturing index is elevated. This leads us to think the cyclical bull market in stocks will continue for the next 12 months. Chart 10Stocks Fare Well When The ISM Is Strong Once inflation begins to rise in earnest in 2019, equities will buckle. Given that the United States accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization, a selloff in the U.S. will be quickly transmitted to the rest of the world. Short-term oriented investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to turn more defensive late next year. Long-term investors should consider paring back exposure already. U.S. Dollar: Stronger For Now, Weaker in 2019 Once the U.S. falls into a recession in late 2019 and the Fed starts cutting rates, the dollar will crumble. But until then, the odds are that the greenback strengthens. Our model suggests that the dollar is undervalued against the euro based on today's level of spreads (Chart 11). Hence, even if spreads remain unchanged, we would expect the dollar to strengthen somewhat. Keep in mind that 10-year German bunds yield nearly two percentage points less than U.S. Treasurys. The euro would have to strengthen to 1.42 against the dollar over the next ten years just to compensate for the lower interest rates that bunds offer. Granted, if spreads between Treasurys and bunds were to narrow significantly, the euro would appreciate. Such an outcome is probable in 2019, by which time investors will begin fretting about a looming U.S. recession and pricing in Fed rate cuts. However, it is not likely to occur over the next 12 months, given the prospect that U.S. growth will accelerate over this period. Chart 12 shows the market's expectation of where one-month OIS rates will be in the U.S. and euro area over the next ten years. The one-month transatlantic rate spread currently stands at 151 basis points and is expected to peak in February 2019 at 210 basis points. It then declines gradually, falling to 164 basis points in five years and 107 basis points in ten years. Chart 11Dollar Is Undervalued Based On Current Spreads Chart 12Rates Will Diverge More In 2018 Than Is Priced In Relative to current market expectations, the interest rate spread one-year out is likely to widen further over the coming months. The market is currently pricing in 54 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and end-2018, well below the "dot" forecast of 100 basis points. For his part, Mario Draghi made it clear last week that the ECB's bond buying program will continue until September 2018, and that the central bank will not raise rates until "well past the horizon of our asset purchases." Chart 13The Euro Has Overshot Interest Rate Spreads There is less scope for spreads to widen if one looks at expected interest rates more than one year into the future. However, we don't see much room for spread compression in the near term, so long as U.S. growth continues to surprise on the upside. Long-term inflation expectations are about 55 basis points lower in the euro area than they are in the U.S. As such, the expected spread in real short-term rates ten years out stands at about 50 basis points (Chart 13). This is not much different from Laubach and Williams' estimate of the gap in the real neutral rate between the U.S. and the euro area. Moreover, as we noted two weeks ago, the actual gap in expected interest rates should be larger than what is implied by neutral rate estimates since unemployment is likely to be above NAIRU more often in the euro area than in the United States.2 On balance, we remain comfortable with our year-end target for EUR/USD of 1.15 and see further upside for the dollar against the euro in 2018. Bank Of Japan: Nowhere Near The Exit Door The yen should also continue to trade down against the greenback. Governor Kuroda dismissed speculation that the BoJ is considering dialing back monetary accommodation during his press conference following this week's Monetary Policy Meeting. The BoJ lowered its inflation outlook for both FY2017 and FY2018, but maintained its projection of reaching its 2% inflation target in FY2019. In perhaps a sign of the times, newly selected board member Goushi Kataoka cast a dissenting vote, arguing that monetary policy should be even more accommodative. Kataoka suggested that the BoJ consider extending its yield curve targeting regime to government bonds with maturities of up to 15 years. Currently, the government seeks to cap yields for maturities of up to ten years. As bond yields elsewhere in the world drift higher, JGBs will become increasingly unattractive. This will weigh on the yen. CAD: Fade The Recent Weakness The Canadian dollar has been on the back foot lately. Last week Governor Poloz mentioned that "a lot of things have to come together" for the Bank of Canada to raise rates in December. This week brought news that the economy shrank by 0.1% in August due to a decline in manufacturing output. The market has gone from fully pricing in a hike in December to only assigning a one-in-five chance that rates will rise. Worries that the Trump administration will pull out of NAFTA have also weighed on rate expectations. Still, one should keep things in perspective. Real GDP is up 3.5% year-over-year - well in excess of the BoC's estimate of trend growth - while the output gap has been fully closed. Canadian GDP growth has historically been closely correlated with U.S. growth, so it would be very surprising if Canada's economy were to flounder just as America's is gaining steam (Chart 14). Chart 14Canada Remains Linked To The U.S. Canadian And U.S. Growth Are Correlated Chart 15The Pound Is Cheap And while the risk of a NAFTA pullout is real, most of Trump's wrath has been focused on Mexico. If NAFTA were to fall apart, Canada would still be covered by preexisting Canada-U.S. trade agreements. We will discuss this and other trade-related issues in a Special Report to be published next week. Perhaps most critically for the loonie, crude prices remain in an uptrend. BCA's energy strategists now see Brent averaging $65.2/bbl and WTI averaging $62.9/bbl in 2018, which is $6.2/bbl and $8.9/bbl, respectively, above current market expectations. Stick with it. Bank Of England Delivers A Dovish Hike In a split 7-to-2 decision, the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee voted to raise rates by 25 basis points for the first time in ten years yesterday. In a nod to the concerns that some board members had about raising rates, the MPC noted that "any future increases in the Bank Rate would be expected to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent." The Committee also removed language suggesting that future rate hikes would have to be in excess of what the market has been pricing in. The MPC's reluctance to sound hawkish is understandable. While the unemployment rate has fallen to a four-decade low, growth has lagged behind the rest of Europe. Consumer confidence has weakened and the CBI retailers survey suggests that British households are tightening their purse strings. House prices in London have fallen 7% since the U.K. government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Inflation is running at 3%, but this mainly reflects the lagged effects from the depreciation in the currency. Still, with the market pricing in only two additional hikes through to mid-2020, it is doubtful that rate expectations will fall much from current levels. There is also a reasonably high probability that Brexit will not occur. At some point over the next few years, the U.K. government will call a new referendum to affirm whatever deal it reaches with the EU. Given that the contours of the deal will be less favorable than what many pro-Brexit voters had been promised, it is likely that a majority of the populace will decide that life inside the EU is better after all. As such, the odds are good that the pound - which is very cheap based on our valuation measures - will strengthen over the long haul (Chart 15). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017 and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China, The Fed, And The Transatlantic Interest Rate Spread," dated October 20, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The three deflationary anchors of the global economy have abated: The U.S. private sector deleveraging is over, the euro area economy is escaping its post crisis hangover, and the destruction of excess capacity in China is advanced. This means that global central banks are in a better position than at any point this cycle to normalize policy, pointing to higher real rates. As a result, gold prices will suffer significant downside. The populist wave in New Zealand is based on inequalities and is here to stay. This will hurt the long-term outlook for the Kiwi. However, short-term NZD has upside, especially against the AUD. The BoE hiked rates, but upside surprises to policy is unlikely now. The pound remains at risk from Brexit negotiations. Feature Chart I-1Gold Is Setting Up For A Big Move Gold is at an interesting juncture. Gold prices, once adjusted for the trend in the U.S. dollar, have been forming a giant tapering wedge since 2011 (Chart I-1). This type of chart formation does not necessarily get resolved by an up-move, nor does it indicate a clear bearish pattern either. Instead, it points toward a potential big move in either direction. For investors, the key to assess whether this wedge will be resolved with a rally or a rout is the trend in global monetary conditions and real rates. In our view, the global economic improvement witnessed in 2017 suggests the world needs less accommodation than at any point since the onset of the great financial crisis. Thus, global accommodation will continue to recede, global real rates will rise and gold will suffer. The Exit Of The Great Deflationary Forces Since the financial crisis, in order to generate any modicum of growth, global monetary authorities have been forced to maintain an incredible degree of monetary accommodation in the global financial system. Central banks' balance sheets have expanded massively, with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank all increasing their asset holdings by 16% of GDP, 26% of GDP, 70% of GDP, 17% of GDP and 97% of GDP respectively. Real rates too have been left at unfathomable levels, with average real policy rates in the U.S., the euro area, Japan and the U.K. standing at 0.13%, -1.15%, -0.19%, and -2.12%, respectively. Despite all this easing, core inflation in the OECD has only averaged 1.68% since 2010, and real growth 2.05% - well below the averages of 2.3% and 2.44%, respectively, from 2001 to 2007. Explaining this extraordinary situation have been three key anchors that have conspired to create strong deflationary forces that have necessitated all this stimulus: the first was U.S. private sector deleveraging, with at its epicenter the rebuilding of household balance sheets. The second was the euro area crisis, which also caused a forced deleveraging in the Spanish and Irish private sector as well as in the Greek and Portuguese public sectors. The third was China's purging of excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors, as well as various heavy industries. These three deflationary anchors seem to have finally passed. In the U.S., nonfinancial private credit is slowly showing signs of recovering. Households have curtailed their savings rate, suggesting a lower level of risk aversion. Even more importantly, the growth in savings deposits is sharply decelerating, which historically tends to be associated with a re-leveraging of the household sector and increasing consumption (Chart I-2). Strong new home sales point toward these developments. The corporate sector is also displaying an important change in behavior. Share buybacks are declining, and both capex intentions and actual capex are recovering smartly - powered by strong profit growth (Chart I-3). This is crucial as it suggests firms are not recycling the liquidity they generate through their operations or their borrowings in the financial markets. Thus, with banks easing their lending standards, additional debt accumulation by firms is likely to support aggregate demand, eliminating a key deflationary force in the global economy. Chart I-2Household Deleveraging Is Over Chart I-3Companies Are Borrowing To Invest Moreover, Jay Powell's nomination to helm the Fed is also important. He is a proponent of decreasing bank regulation, especially for small banks that greatly rely on loan formation for their earnings. A softening in regulatory stance on these institutions could contribute to higher credit growth in the U.S. With aggregate liquidity conditions of the private sector - shown by the ratio of liquid assets to liabilities - having already improved, and indicating that a turning point in U.S. inflation will soon be reached, more credit growth could further stoke inflation (Chart I-4). Europe as well is also escaping its own morose state. ECB President Mario Draghi's fateful words in July 2012 resulted in a compression of peripheral spreads as investors priced away the risk of a breakup of the euro area (Chart I-5). As a result, the massive policy easing associated with negative rates and the ECB's expanded asset purchase program was transmitted to the parts of the euro area that really needed that easing: the periphery. Now, Europe is booming: Monetary aggregates have regained traction, real GDP growth is growing at a 2.3% annual pace, PMIs are growing vigorously, and even the unemployment rate has fallen back below 9%. European inflation remains low, but nonetheless the nadir of -0.6% hit in 2015 has also passed (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Liquid Private Balance Sheet Point To Inflation Chart I-5Draghi Held The Key To Help Europe Chart I-6Europe Past The Worst In China too we have seen important progress. Curtailment to excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors as well as across a wide swath of industries are bearing fruit (Chart I-7). China is not the source of deflation that it was as recently as 2015. Industrial profits have stopped contracting, industrial price deflation is over, and even core consumer prices are showing signs of vigor, growing at a 2.28% pace, the highest since the 2010 to 2011 period (Chart I-8). Thanks to these developments, global export prices have stopped deflating and are now growing at a 4.64% annual pace. With the three deflationary anchors having been slain, global growth is now able to escape its lethargy, with industrial activity at its strongest since 2003, while global capacity utilization has improved (Chart I-9). This is giving global central banks room to remove their easing. The Fed has already hiked rates four times and is embarking on decreasing its balance sheet; the Bank of Canada has followed suit two times, and the BoE, one time. Even the ECB is now beginning to taper its own asset purchases. We do anticipate this trend to continue with more and more central banks, with potentially the exception of the BoJ, joining the fray as the global environment remains clement. Even the People's Bank of China is likely to keep tightening policy due to the increasingly inflationary environment being experienced. Chart I-7Chinese Excess Capacity Purge Chart I-8China Doesn't Export Deflation Anymore Chart I-9Central Banks Can Normalize Bottom Line: The three anchors of global deflation have been slain. Private sector deleveraging in the U.S. is over, the euro area has healed and Chinese excess capacity has declined. As a result, global economic activity is at its strongest level in 14 years, and deflationary forces are becoming more muted. This is giving global central banks an opportunity to normalize policy without yet killing the business cycle. Implications For Gold Gold is likely to fare very poorly in this environment. Gold can be thought of as a zero coupon, extremely long-maturity inflation-indexed bond. This means that gold is a function of both inflation and real rates. Currently, gold offers little protection against outright inflation, having moved out of line with prices by a very large margin (Chart I-10). This leaves gold extremely vulnerable to development in real rates and liquidity. Saying that central banks can begin to normalize policy is akin to saying that central banks are in a position where letting real rate rise is feasible. As Chart I-11 illustrates, there has been a strong negative relationship between TIPS yields and gold prices. Moreover, when one looks beyond the price of gold in U.S. dollars, one can see that gold has been negatively affected by higher bond yields (Chart I-11, bottom panel). BCA currently recommends an underweight stance on duration, one that is synonymous with lower gold prices.1 Chart I-10Gold Is Expensive Chart I-11Higher Interest Rates Equal Lower Gold Moreover, the Fed's own research suggests that its asset purchases have curtailed the term premium by 85 basis points. The balance sheet run-off that the U.S. central bank is engineering will weaken that impact to a more meager 60 basis points by 2024. This also points to lower gold prices, as gold prices have displayed a negative relationship with the term premium (Chart I-12). An outperformance of financials in general but banks in particular is also associated with poor returns for gold (Chart I-13). Strong financials are associated with growing loan volumes, which mean a lesser need for policy easing, which puts upward pressure on the cost of money. Anastasios Avgeriou, who heads BCA's sectoral research, has an overweight on banks both globally and in the U.S. on the basis of the stronger loan growth we are beginning to see around the world.2 This represents a dangerous environment for gold. Chart I-12Normalizing Term Premium ##br##Is Dangerous For Gold Chart I-13Bullish Banks Equals ##br##Bearish Gold Finally, there is an interesting relationship between real stock prices and real gold prices. When stocks are in a secular bull market, gold prices are typically in a secular bear market (Chart I-14). A secular bull market in stocks tends to happen in an environment where there is more confidence that growth is becoming more durable, where there is less fear that currencies will have to be debased to support economic activity, or where inflation is not a destructive force like it was in the 1970s. These are environments where real rates tend to have upside. The continued strength in global equity prices, which are again in a secular bull market, would thus contribute to an increase in currently still-depressed global real yields, and thus, create downside in gold. One key risk to our view is that the Fed falls meaningfully behind the curve and lets inflation rise violently, which would put downward pressure on real rates and cause a violent correction in global equity prices - prompting investors to price in an easing in monetary policy. Geopolitics are another key risk, particularly a ratcheting up in North Korea tensions. With our bullish stance on the dollar, we are inclined to short the yellow metal versus the greenback. Moreover, for the past eight years, when net speculative positions in gold have been as elevated as they are today relative to net wagers on the DXY, gold in U.S. dollar terms has tended to weaken (Chart I-15). However, the analysis above suggests that gold could weaken against G10 currencies in aggregate. Thus investors with a more negative dollar view than ours could elect to sell gold against the euro. Agnostic players should short gold equally against the USD and the EUR. Chart I-14Gold And Stocks Don't Like Each Other Chart I-15Tactical Risk To Gold Bottom Line: The outlook for gold is negative. As the global economy escapes its deflationary funk and global central banks begin abandoning emergency easing measures, real interest rates will rise and term premia will normalize, which will put downward pressure on gold prices. Additionally, BCA's positive stance on banks is corollary with a negative outlook on gold. The continued bull market in stocks is an additional hurdle for gold. New Zealand: A New Hot Spot Of Populism The formation of the Labour/NZ First/Green coalition has sent ripples through the kiwi. The reaction of investors is fully rational, as the Adern government is carrying a very populist torch, sporting a program of limiting foreign investments in housing, limiting immigration, increasing the minimum wage and creating a dual mandate for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The key question is whether this is a fad, or whether something more profound is at play in New Zealand. We worry it is the latter. New Zealand has suffered from a profound increase in inequality since pro-market reforms were implemented in the 1980s. New Zealand's gini coefficient is very elevated, but even more worrisome has been the deteriorating trend. As Chart I-16 illustrates, the ratio of income of the top 20% of households relative to the bottom 20% has been in a steady uptrend. Additionally, this trend is sharper once the cost of housing is incorporated into the equation. Moreover, as Chart I-17 shows, New Zealand has experienced one of the most pronounced increases in housing costs among the G10. Chart I-16Growing Inequalities In New Zealand Chart I-17Kiwi Housing Is Expensive It is undeniable that the impact of immigration has been real. Net migration has averaged 24 thousand a year since 2000, on a population of 4.8 million. Moreover, the labor participation rate of immigrants has been higher than that of the general population, reinforcing the perception that immigration has contributed to keeping wage growth low (Chart I-18). The effect of low wage growth - whether caused or not caused by the increase in the foreign-born population - has been to boost household credit demand, pushing the national savings rate into negative territory, something that was required if households were to keep spending. These developments suggest that kiwi populism is not a fad, and is in fact a factor that will remain present in New Zealand politics. It also implies that policies designed to limit foreign investments into housing as well as immigration are indeed popular and will be implemented. What are the economic implications of these developments? Immigration was a key source of growth for New Zealand. As Chart I-19 shows, the growth of the kiwi economy since 1985 has been driven by an increase in the labor force. In fact, over the past five years, 86% of growth has been caused by labor force growth, with a very limited contribution from productivity gains. More concerning, as Chart I-20 shows, 44% of the increase in the population growth since 2012 has been related to immigration. Chart I-18The Narrative: Foreigners Steal Our Jobs Chart I-19Kiwi Growth: Labor Force Is Key Chart I-20Labor Force Growth Could Halve Additionally, according to the IMF's Article IV consultation for New Zealand, immigration has boosted output significantly, contributing to total hours worked as well as forcing an increase in the capital stock, which has boosted capex (Table I-1). Hence, lower intakes of foreign-born workers is likely to push down the country's potential growth rate. Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country’s neutral rate. As Chart 21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential growth rate would push down the equilibrium policy rate in New Zealand, limiting how high the RBNZ's terminal policy rate will rise in the future. This points toward downward pressure on the NZD on a long-term basis. Shorting NZD/CAD structurally makes sense at current levels, especially as Canada remains open to immigration and immune to populism, as income inequalities are much more controlled there (Chart I-22). Table I-1Impact Of Immigration On Growth Chart I-21Kiwi Neutral Rate Has Downside Chart I-22NZD/CAD: Long-Term Heavy Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country's neutral rate. As Chart I-21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential Shorter-term, the picture is slightly brighter for the NZD. Credit growth is strong, and is pointing toward an increase in the cash rate next year. Additionally, consumer confidence is high, and the labor market is showing signs of tightness, especially as the output gap stands at 0.87% of GDP (Chart I-23). This tightness in the labor market could easily be catalyzed into higher wage growth, especially as the new government is tabulating a 4.76% increase in the minimum wage in the coming quarters. Thus, BCA continues to expect an uptick in kiwi inflation and higher kiwi rates, even if a dual mandate for the RBNZ is implemented. Our favored way to play this strength in the kiwi remains going short the AUD/NZD. Our valuation model points to a strong sell signal in this cross (Chart I-24). Moreover, speculators are very long the AUD relative to the NZD, which historically has provided a contrarian signal to short it. Additionally, the concentration of power around Chinese President Xi Jinping points towards more reform implementations in China - reforms that we estimate will be targeted at decreasing the reliance of growth on debt-fueled investment while increasing the welfare of households, which should help Chinese consumption. As a result, metals could suffer relative to consumer goods. With New Zealand being a big exporter of foodstuffs and dairy products, this should represent a positive terms-of-trade shock for the kiwi relative to the Aussie. Chart I-23Short-Term Positives In New Zealand Chart I-24Downside Risk To AUD/NZD Bottom Line: The increase in populism in New Zealand is being fueled by a sharp increase in inequalities and rising housing costs. Immigration, rightly or wrongly, has been blamed in the public narrative for these ills. The measures announced by the Adern government target these issues head on, and we expect they will be implemented. This hurts New Zealand's long-term growth profile, and thus the terminal rate hit by the RBNZ this cycle. This could hurt the NZD on a structural basis. Tactically, it still makes sense to be short AUD/NZD. A Word On The BoE The BoE increased rates this week for the first time in a decade, but now acknowledges that current SONIA pricing is correct, removing its mention that risks are skewed toward higher rates than anticipated by the market. The pound sold off sharply on the news. Consumer confidence and retailer orders point to further slowdown in consumption. Thus, we think the British OIS curve is currently well priced, limiting any potential rebound in the GBP. Brexit continues to spook markets, rightfully. The political theater is far from over, and the continued uncertainty is likely to weigh further on the U.K. economy. This is likely to generate additional downside risk in the pound over the coming months. Thus, on balance, our current assessment is that the risks are too high to make a bullish bet on the GBP for now. A progress in the negotiations between the U.K. and the EU is needed before investors can buy the GBP, a currency that is cheap on a long-term basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Fed, Ignore The Bank Of England" dated September 19, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Buy The Breakout" dated May 5, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com and U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Girding For A Breakout?" dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Core PCE was unchanged at 1.3%, and in line with expectations; Headline PCE was also unchanged at 1.6%; ISM Prices Paid came in at 68.5, beating expectations of 68; ISM Manufacturing came in weaker than expected. In other news, Jerome Powell is President Trump's pick as the next Fed chairman to replace Janet Yellen. Market reaction was muted as Powell is expected to continue in Yellen's footsteps and hike rates at a similar pace. While the Fed decided to leave rates unchanged this month, the probability of a December rate hike went up to 98%. We expect the USD bull market to strengthen next year when inflation re-emerges. Report Links: It's Not My Cross To Bear - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe was mixed: German and Italian inflation underperformed expectations and weakened compared to last month, while French inflation beat expectations; Overall European headline and core inflation also mixed expectations, coming in at 1.4% and 1.1% respectively; European preliminary GDP, however, beat expectations of 2.4%, coming in at 2.5%; The unemployment rate dropped to 8.9% for the euro area; The euro was up on Thursday after the nomination of Jerome Powell as Fed chair. His nomination represents a continuity of monetary policy. Despite this, we believe the re-emergence of inflation will cause the Fed to continue hiking after the December hike, deepening downward pressure on the euro next year. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth came above expectations, coming in at -2.9%. However, housing starts did accelerate their contraction from August, when they were falling by 2% year-on-year. Industrial Production yearly growth came in above expectations, at 2.5%. However the jobs-to-applicants ratio came below expectations, staying put at 1.52. On Tuesday the BoJ left rates unchanged. Additionally the committee vowed to keep 10-year government bond yield around 0% and to continue their ETF purchases. More importantly, however, was the Bank of Japan's change to its outlook for inflation, which was decreased for this year. We continue to believe that deflation is too entrenched in Japan for the BoJ to change its policy stand. Thus, we expect USD/JPY to keep grinding higher, as U.S. monetary policy becomes more hawkish vis-à-vis Japan. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has surprised to the upside: Mortgage Approvals also outperformed expectations, coming in at 66.232 thousand. Moreover Nationwide house price yearly growth also outperformed, coming at 2.5% Both Markit Manufacturing PMI and Construction PMI outperformed, coming in at 56.3 and 50.8 respectively. The BoE hiked rates yesterday by 25 basis points as expected. Moreover, the committee also voted unanimously to maintain the stock of UK government bond purchases. However, the committee also acknowledged that inflation was not be the only effect of Brexit on the economy. They highlighted that uncertainty about the exit from the European Union was hurting activity despite a positive global growth backdrop. Overall, we think that the BoE will not deviate from the interest rate path priced into the OIS curve. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: HIA New Home Sales contracted by 6.1%; AiG Performance of Manufacturing Index came in at 51.1, less than the previous 54.2; Exports increased by 3%, while imports stayed flat at 0%; The trade balance increased to AUD 1.745 bn, compared to the expected AUD 1.2 bn, and above the previous AUD 873 mn. The AUD was up on the release of the trade balance. But underlying slack in the economy, which worries RBA officials, points to a low fair value for the AUD. The AUD will be the poorest performer out of the commodity currencies, due to the relative strength of those economies and of oil relative to metals. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: The unemployment rate came below expectations at 4.6%, it also decreased from last quarter's 4.8% reading. The participation rate came above expectations, at 71.1%. It also increased from 70% on the previous quarter. The Labour cost Index came in line with expectations at 1.9% yearly growth. However it increased from 1.6% in the previous quarter. Overall the New Zealand economy looks very strong. This should warrant a hike by the RBNZ. However the new government create a new set of long-term risks. The elected government is a response to the high inequality and high migration that the country had experienced in the recent years. Overall the plans to reduce immigration and install a double mandate to the RBNZ are bearish for the NZD, as the neutral rate of New Zealand would be structurally lowered. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data has been weak recently: The raw material price index contracted by 0.1%; Industrial product prices contracted at a 0.3% monthly rate; GDP also contracted at a 0.1% monthly pace; Manufacturing PMI came out at 54.3, lower than the previous 55. In addition to this, Poloz identified several issues with the Canadian economy in his speech on Tuesday. These included the deflationary effects of e-commerce, slack in the labor market, subdued wage growth, and the elevated level of household debt. The probability of a rate hike has fallen to 22% for December, and it only rises above 50% in March next year. The CAD has lost a lot of its value since the BoC began hiking, but we believe it will resume hiking next year. Increasing oil prices will also mean that that CAD will outperform other G10 currencies. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been positive: The SVME Purchasing Manager's Index came above expectations at 62 in October. It also increased from the September reading. The KOF leading indicator also outperformed expectations significantly, coming at 109.1. EUR/CHF continues to climb unabated and is now only 3% from where it was before the SNB let the franc appreciate in January of 2015. Overall we see little indication that the SNB would let the franc appreciate again in the near future. On Wednesday, SNB Vice President Zurbruegg continued to talk down the franc by stating that a stronger CHF would cause a growth slowdown and that the CHF is still highly valued. Thus we expect downside in EUR/CHF to be limited for the time being. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, as they contracted by 0.8% in September. However Norway's credit indicator surprised to the upside, coming in at 5.8%. Since September USD/NOK has appreciated by nearly 6%. This has been in an environment where oil has rallied by nearly 20%. Although this divergence might seem counterintuitive, it confirms our previous findings: USD/NOK is much more sensitive to real rate differentials than to oil prices. Inflationary pressures are still very tepid in Norway, while inflation is set to go higher in the U.S. These factors will further amplify the monetary policy divergences between these 2 countries, and consequently propel USD/NOK higher. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish Manufacturing PMI decreased to 59.3 from 63.7, below the expected 62. EUR/SEK has appreciated to June levels, implying that markets have priced out any potential hawkishness by the Riksbank. Similarly, USD/SEK has risen by 6.2% from September lows. This is due to the re-chairing of Stefan Ingves, known for negative rates and quantitative easing. On the opposite side of the trade, President Trump elected Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair who will most likely continue the rate hike path highlighted by Janet Yellen. This will add further upward pressure on USD/SEK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Stay underweight U.K. real estate and consumer services versus German real estate and consumer services. The global bond yield mini-cycle is driving asset allocation, sector allocation, value/growth allocation and country allocation. We are more than half way through the current mini-upswing in global bond yields. Look for opportunities to cut back overall portfolio cyclicality towards the end of the year. Feature London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago (Chart of the Week). The average London home is now worth £584,000,1 down from £628,000. Moreover, our leading indicator for London house prices which compares the number of new viewings (demand) with the number of new listings (supply) suggests no imminent end to the sharpest price decline since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Brexit Begins To Bite In London Chart I-2The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... Unsurprisingly, the many uncertainties surrounding the unfolding Brexit process are having a much greater impact on the London housing market than on the U.K. housing market as a whole. Outside London, the housing market is broadly flat-lining (Chart I-3). The average U.K. home outside London is now worth £256,500, modestly down from £260,000. Chart I-3 ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining U.K. Households Squeezed We are writing ahead of the Bank of England monetary policy meeting, at which the BoE may deliver its first interest rate hike since July 2007. But hike or no hike, we can confidently say one thing: U.K. households will be squeezed. If the BoE does hike the base rate in an attempt to counter overshooting inflation, it could tip the precariously flat-lining housing market outside London into a downturn - as this market is much more exposed to mortgage affordability than it is to Brexit uncertainties. Alternatively, if the BoE does not hike the base rate, the boost to sterling from recent hawkish rhetoric will be priced out, and the pound will come under renewed downward pressure. This would keep U.K. inflation elevated, and further choke U.K. households' real incomes. Absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, U.K. inflation would be substantially lower than it is (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). So the pound's weakness explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. And as we explained in Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes,2 nor is it likely to in the near future. Chart I-4The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-5...And U.K. Core Inflation But doesn't textbook economic theory say that the pound's weakness should make U.K. exports more competitive - thereby boosting the net export contribution to economic growth? Yes, the theory does say that a currency devaluation should allow firms to trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. However, to trade in these newly profitable markets, firms first need to invest - for example, in marketing and distribution. The trouble is that, post-Brexit, many of the newly profitable markets may be unavailable, or come with heavy tariffs. So firms will hold off making the necessary investments, unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. In summary, U.K. consumer spending faces a continued squeeze. If the BoE delivers a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. But if the BoE does not deliver the rate hike, the pound will once again weaken, keeping inflation elevated and weighing on real incomes. Stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus German consumer services (Chart I-6). And stay underweight U.K. real estate versus German real estate - expressed either through direct real estate exposure or through real estate equities (Chart I-7). Chart I-6U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Chart I-7U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming Investment Reductionism Illustrated Turning to markets more generally, it is crucial to understand that most of the moves in most financial markets reduce to a very small number of over-arching macro drivers. We call this very important principle Investment Reductionism. Investment Reductionism emerges from two guiding philosophies: Occam's Razor - which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle (the 80:20 rule) - which says that a small minority of causes usually explain a large majority of effects. The upshot of Investment Reductionism is that the seeming complexity of asset allocation, sector selection, the choice between value or growth, and country allocation usually reduces to something much simpler. Let's illustrate this. The global 6-month credit impulse leads the cyclical direction of the global bond yield, and thereby determines asset allocation (Chart I-8). The direction of the global bond yield drives sector selection: for example Banks versus Healthcare. This is because higher bond yields imply higher net interest margins for banks as well as an improving growth outlook, favouring cyclicals over defensives. And vice-versa (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Investment Reductionism Step 1: ##br##The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Chart I-9Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives ##br##Sector Performance Banks versus Healthcare determines the European Value versus Growth decision. This is because in Europe, Banks and Healthcare are the dominant value sector and growth sector respectively (Chart I-10). Banks versus Healthcare also determines the country allocation between, say, Italy's MIB - which is bank heavy - and Denmark's OMX - which is healthcare heavy (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value ##br##Vs. Growth Chart I-11Step 4: Sector Performance Drives ##br##Country Performance Therefore, the important lesson from Investment Reductionism is to ignore the hundreds of things that matter little, and to focus on the very small number of things that matter a lot. And one of the things that matters a lot is the global bond yield mini-cycle. Where Are We In The Bond Yield Mini-Cycle? Empirically, the acceleration and deceleration of global bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months (Chart I-12). The global bond yield shows a similarly regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle also averaging about 8 months (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Chart I-13The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern It is not a coincidence that the bank credit impulse and bond yield exhibit near identical half-cycle lengths. The global credit impulse and global bond yield are inextricably embraced in a perpetual mini-cycle. A stronger credit impulse boosts economic growth. In response to the stronger economic data, the bond yield rises, which slows credit growth. A weaker credit impulse weighs down economic growth. In response to the weaker economic data, the bond yield declines, which re-accelerates credit growth. Go back to step 1 and repeat ad perpetuam. At this moment, from an investment perspective, there are three points worth making: first, bond yield mini-upswings tend to occur mostly within the credit impulse upswing; second, credit impulse mini-upswings have a consistent duration lasting about 8 months; and third, the current mini-upswing started in May. What does this mean for investment strategy? It means that we are more than half-way through the current mini-upswing which we would expect to end around January/February. And at some point early next year we are likely to enter a mini-downswing. So it is slightly premature to cut back cyclical exposure right now. But we would certainly consider opportunities as we move to the end of the year - especially if our now tried and tested fractal timing indicators signal that the price action in specific investments has reached a technical tipping point. Stay tuned. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: LSL Acadata 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes", dated August 10 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, our model suggests that the New Zealand dollar is oversold and ripe for a technical rebound. The recommended trade is long NZD/USD with a profit target/stop loss set at 3%. In other trades, long Canada 10-year bond/short German 10-year bund achieved its profit target while short Norway/long Switzerland hit its stop loss. This leaves five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-14 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations