Financial Markets

Highlights Key Portfolio Highlights Improved world economic growth and rising inflation expectations have buoyed global equities (Chart 1). The downside is that financial conditions are tightening and U.S. dollar-based liquidity is contracting, which is growth restrictive (Chart 2). The massive outperformance of the financials and industrials sectors since the U.S. election implies that U.S. markets have been largely politically-motivated. Positive economic surprises remain mostly sentiment/confidence driven, rather than from upside in hard economic data (Chart 3). That unusually large gap implies that a big jump in 'hard data' surprises is already discounted and represents a latent risk, as it did in the spring of 2011 just before the summertime equity market swoon. Federal income tax receipts are contracting, suggesting that an economic boom is not forthcoming (Chart 4). In fact, there has never been a contraction in tax receipts without a corresponding slump in employment growth. Corporate sector pricing power gains have not been evenly distributed. Deep cyclicals gains came off a low base and may already be experiencing a relapse. Conversely, defensive and interest rate-sensitive sectors are demonstrating the most strength (Chart 5). Our macro models are not signaling that investors should position as if robust and self-reinforcing economic growth lies ahead. Our Deep Cyclical indicators are the weakest, while defensive and interest rate-sensitive models are grinding higher (Chart 6). Deep cyclical sectors are very overvalued and overbought, while defensives are deeply undervalued and oversold (Charts 7 and 8). Mean reversion is an apt theme for the next few months. The most attractive combination of macro, valuation and technical readings are in the consumer staples, health care sectors. The financials sector is a close second, but it is overbought. The least attractive combinations are in energy, materials and industrials. Prospects for elevated market volatility, stronger economic growth in developed vs developing economies, a tighter Fed and expensive U.S. dollar are consistent with maintaining a largely defensive portfolio structure (Charts 9-12). Chart 1Pricing Power Revival... Chart 2... But A Liquidity Drain Chart 3Show Me The Money Chart 4Yellow Flag Chart 5Pricing Recovery Is Not Broad Based Chart 6Indicator Snapshot Chart 7Focus On Value Chart 8Mean Reversion Ahead Chart 9Fundamentals Favor Defensives... Chart 10... As Do Market Signals Chart 1112-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 1224-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 13Staples Will Cushion A Volatility Resurgence Chart 14Media Stocks Like A Strong Currency Chart 15Unduly Punished Chart 16Strong Fundamental Support Chart 17Less Production... Chart 18... Means More Rigs Chart 19End Of Sugar High Chart 20A Toxic Mix Chart 21Tech Stocks Don't Like Inflation Chart 22Time To Disconnect Feature S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight - High Conviction) The Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) has been grinding higher for several months, even climbing through last year's share price shellacking. The CMI has been supported by the uptrend in relative consumer spending on essential items and consumer preference for saving vs. spending. More recently, a pricing power recovery in a number of groups has provided an assist as has a rebound in staples export growth. Booming consumer confidence and business confidence have held the CMI in check. The strong U.S. currency, particularly bilaterally against China, also implies a reduction in the cost of imported goods sold, and has also been an indication of relative valuation expansion because it often signals increased financial market volatility (Chart 13 on page 6). The attractive valuation starting point this cycle, and historic outperformance when the Fed raises interest rates (Chart 13 on page 6), were key factors behind our upgrade to high conviction status in January. Technical conditions are completely washed out. Sector breadth and momentum have reached oversold extremes. That signals widespread bearishness, which is positive from a contrary perspective. Chart 23 S&P Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) Our CMI is forming a tentative trough, supported by rebounding relative outlays on media services, low prices at the pump, a budding recovery in mortgage equity withdrawal and firming wage growth. The biggest drags over the past few months have come from higher Treasury yields and consumers increased propensity to save. However, rising job certainty and a vibrant residential real estate market suggest that consumers should loosen their purse strings. The VI has deflated toward the neutral zone, although remains moderately expensive from a long-term perspective. Our TI started to rebound from oversold levels. History shows that a recovery in the TI from one standard deviation below the mean has heralded a playable relative performance rally. Overweight positions should remain concentrated in housing-related equities and the media space, both of which benefit from U.S. dollar appreciation (Chart 14 on page 6). Chart 24 S&P REITs (Overweight - High Conviction) Our new REIT CMI has ticked lower, but the share price ratio has over-exaggerated this small move down. REITs have traded as if the back up in global bond yields will persist indefinitely, and that they are the only factor that drives relative performance. Improving cash flows and cheap valuations suggest that REITs can decouple from bond yields. Banks have tightened standards on commercial real estate loans, but this appears more likely to limit supply growth than create a slowdown. Commercial property prices are hitting new highs and our REIT Demand Indicator (RDI) has climbed into positive territory, signaling higher rental inflation. The latter is already outpacing overall CPI by a wide margin (Chart 15 on page 7). While REITs are back to fair value from a long-term perspective, on a shorter term basis the sector is very undervalued (Chart 15 on page 7), particularly with Treasury yields now in undervalued territory. Our REIT TI is extremely oversold, at a point which forward relative returns typically shine on a 12 and 24 month basis, even excluding the dividend yield kicker. Chart 25 S&P Health Care (Overweight) Our CMI continues to grind higher, opening a massive divergence with relative performance. This gap can be explained by the political attack on the pharmaceutical industry, the sector's heavyweight, rather than by a downturn in relative earnings drivers. Pharmaceutical shipments are hitting new highs and pricing power continues to grow at a robust mid-single digit rate. Future pricing gains may slow if government gets more heavily involved in setting prices, but this is already discounted. Pricing power in the rest of the sector remains strong, while wage inflation is tame. Health care spending is still growing as a share of total spending, but the pace is decelerating. Typically, this backdrop signals outperformance for health care insurers, who may also receive a risk premium reduction from a potential revamp of the Affordable Care Act, albeit the timing will likely be drawn out. Relative valuations are very attractive. The sector has been used as a source of capital to fund purchases in areas expected to benefit from increased fiscal stimulus. That is an overreaction, and flows should be restored to reflect the sector's appealing investment profile, particularly given the sector's track record during Fed tightening cycles (Chart 16 on page 7). The TI is deeply oversold. Breadth measures are beginning to recover from completely washed out levels. These conditions reinforce that an exploitable undershoot has occurred. Chart 26 S&P Financials (Neutral) Our Financial CMI has surged, underscoring that the advance in relative performance reflects more than just a reaction to anticipated sector deregulation by the Trump Administration. Leading indicators of capital formation, such as the stock-to-bond ratio, have jumped sharply. Moreover, the yield curve has steepened in recent months, bolstering the CMI. An improvement in overall profit growth and the tight labor market suggest that the credit cycle may not become a profit drag until the economy begins to cool. While not yet evident, the restrictive move in oil, the dollar and bond yields warn that disappoint may emerge in the coming months. It is notable that bank loan growth has dropped to nil over the last 3 months. C&I loan growth is contracting over that time period. Banks are hiring more aggressively, yet are tightening lending standards, suggesting productivity disappointment ahead. Despite the share price jump, value remains attractive after 8 years of financial repression. Our TI is overbought and breadth is beginning to recede, which is often a precursor to a consolidation phase. We are not willing to move beyond a market weight allocation at this juncture. Chart 27 S&P Energy (Neutral) Our CMI has plunged, probing all-time lows. Rising oil inventories and spiking wage inflation are exerting severe gravitational pull on the CMI, more than offsetting the budding recovery in domestic production. Refining margins are probing six year lows as the Brent/WTI spread has evaporated. Nevertheless, OPEC is finally curtailing production, joining non-OPEC producers (Chart 17 on page 8), which should ultimately help eat into excess global oil supply. History shows that once supply growth peaks, the rig count typically firms. That is a plus for energy services (Chart 18 on page 8), even though rising oil production will prove self-limiting for oil prices. High yield spreads have narrowed significantly from nosebleed levels, but industry balance sheets remain bruised. Net debt is historically elevated, EBITDA has yet to return to its glory days, and interest coverage remains anemic and vulnerable to any downside energy price surprises. The surge in our VI reflects depressed cash flow, and is overstating the degree of overvaluation. The TI has returned to the neutral zone, and will need to hold at current levels otherwise a relapse in the share price ratio toward previous lows is probable. Selectivity is still warranted in the energy complex. We remain underweight refiners and overweight the energy services index. Chart 28 S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our utilities sector CMI is stabilizing. That is a surprise, given the rebound in inflation expectations and firming global leading economic indicators, which are typically bearish for this defensive, fixed-income proxy. The latter negative exogenous factors are being offset by falling wage inflation, better pricing power and rising electricity output growth. Power demand is linked with manufacturing activity, underscoring that there is an element of cyclicality to sector profits. The share price ratio has held up better than most other defensive sectors since the U.S. election, perhaps on the hope that an overhaul of the tax code will benefit this domestic sector. Regardless, valuations have retreated from the extremely expensive zone where we took profits and downgraded to neutral last summer, but are not yet at a level that warrants re-establishing overweight positions. An upgrade could occur once our TI becomes fully washed out, provided that occurs within the context of additional CMI strength and a peak in global growth and inflation momentum. Chart 29 S&P Industrials (Underweight - High Conviction) The CMI has edged lower after a modest recovery in recent months. The strong U.S. dollar, relapse in short-term pricing power measures and sector productivity contraction are offsetting improvement in global PMI surveys. The lack of confirmation of an industrial sector revival from emerging markets is also holding back the CMI. There continues to be a deflationary undercurrent in the form of more rapid capacity than industrial sector output growth, suggesting that durable pricing power gains may remain elusive (Chart 19 on page 9). The post-election surge in share prices is slowly being unwound, as the sector was quick to discount expectations for massive domestic fiscal stimulus. Our valuation gauge is not at an extreme, although a number of individual groups are trading at historically rich multiples, such as machinery and railroads. Participation is beginning to fray around the edges, as our relative advance/decline line has rolled over, as has breadth. Our TI is pulling back from overbought levels, warning that a further correction in the share price ratio looms. It would be nearly unprecedented for the share price ratio to trough before our TI hits oversold levels. Industrials fare poorly when the Fed tightens. Chart 30 S&P Materials (Underweight) The CMI has nosedived, reflecting China's diminishing fiscal thrust and the recent tightening in monetary policy. Commodity price inflation peaked in mid-December concurrent with the Fed raising rates, signaling that emerging markets end-demand, in general and Chinese in particular, is likely past its prime. The nascent rebound in EM currencies represents a positive offset, but not by enough to turn around the CMI. Select heavyweight EM manufacturing PMIs are still below the boom/bust line. Relative valuations are becoming extended according to our VI, and stretched technical conditions are waving a red flag. Keep in mind the materials sector has an abysmal performance history after the Fed starts tightening (Chart 20 on page 9). The heavyweight chemical index (75% of the sector) bears the brunt of the downside risks owing to excess capacity (Chart 20 on page 9). On the flipside, overweight exposure in gold mining (via the GDX:US ETF) and the niche containers & packaging sub-indexes is recommended. Chart 31 S&P Technology (Underweight) The CMI has rolled over, driven lower by contracting relative pricing power, decelerating new orders-to-inventories growth, lack of capital expenditure traction and the appreciating greenback. Tech stocks thrive in a disinflationary/deflationary environment and suffer during inflationary periods (Chart 21 on page 10). Inflation is making a comeback, so it will be an uphill battle for tech companies to successfully raise selling prices at a fast enough pace to keep profits on a par with the broad corporate sector. While a capital spending cycle would be a welcome development, the narrowing gap between the return on and cost of capital warns against extrapolating improvement in business sentiment just yet. Our S&P technology operating profit model warns that tech profits are likely to trail the broad market as the year progresses, a far cry from what is embedded in analysts' forecasts. The good news is that valuations are not demanding nor are technical conditions overbought, which should cushion the magnitude and sharpness of downside risks. Chart 32 S&P Telecom Services (Underweight) Our CMI for telecom services has gained ground of late, primarily on the back of a sharp decline in wage inflation. However, we recently downgraded exposure to underweight, because of a frail spending backdrop. Our telecom services sales model is extremely weak (Chart 22 on page 10). Softening outlays on telecom services have reinvigorated the industry price war, and our pricing power gauge is sinking like a stone (Chart 22 on page 10). Telecom carrier capital expenditures have been running at a healthy clip, which could further pressure profit margins. Undervaluation exists, but this has been a chronic feature for the sector over the past decade, and does not foretell of cyclical upside or downside risks. Our TI has plunged into the sell zone, but remains above levels that would signal that a countertrend rally is imminent. Chart 33 Size Indicator (Overweight Small Vs. Large Caps) The small/large cap ratio is correcting short-term overbought conditions. The dip in the U.S. dollar has provided a fundamental reason for corrective action in this domestically-oriented asset class. However, we doubt a trend change is at hand. Our style CMI is climbing steadily. Small company business optimism has soared, partly because of an increase in planned price hikes, but also from an anticipated reduction in the regulatory burden. If small company price hikes persist, then rising labor costs will be more easily absorbed. That is critical to narrowing the profit margin gap between small and large firms. A stronger domestic vs. global economy and the potential for trade barriers is also unambiguously positive for small firms that do the bulk of their business at home. Despite the surge in the share price ratio post-U.S. election, our valuation gauge is not yet at an overvalued extreme. The lack of extreme overvaluation suggests that positive momentum will persist, perhaps similar to the 2004-2006 period, when the share price ratio stayed in overbought territory for years. Chart 34

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

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

Highlights Weekly swings in U.S. inventories notwithstanding, we believe global storage is on track to draw ~ 10% by early- to mid-3Q17, which will have achieved the goal of the OPEC - Russia production Agreement negotiated late last year. This will not require an extension of the pact beyond June, based on our modeling. Unexpectedly high compliance by OPEC producers to agreed cuts is being offset somewhat by increased production in those states exempted from the deal. Strong oil consumption on the back of a synchronized global uptick in GDP growth, which started to emerge late last year, provides the impetus for sustained storage draws. Markets are overestimating offshore production's resilience, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, where we see material declines beginning to set in next year. Backwardation likely persists in 2018, absent a U.S. policy-induced USD rally that crimps EM demand and spurs production ex U.S. Energy: Overweight. The return of contango in the WTI forward curve gives us the opportunity to reset our strategic front-to-back position (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) at tonight's close. Our balances assessment supports our view backwardation will return in the deferred part of the curve. Our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread buy stop was elected at $0.07/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, but are keeping a close watch on copper. Unions working at BHP's Escondida mine, the world's largest, are set to strike today. Negotiations resumed this week, following BHP's request for government mediation. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain fundamentals remain unsupportive for a rally. We remain underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Oil Storage On Track For 10% Drop Global oil storage levels remain on track to hit the ~ 10% draw targeted in last year's OPEC - Russia production Agreement by early- to mid-3Q17, weekly gyrations in U.S. inventories notwithstanding. This means an extension of the agreement beyond its June expiry will not be required. Early reports suggest compliance with the deal is unexpectedly high by OPEC states that agreed to cut production by up to 1.2mm b/d - exceeding 80% by various accounts. However, OPEC states not required to cut - Libya, Nigeria, and Iran - have increased production and partially offset those declines, which took total reductions in OPEC output to ~ 840k b/d, based on a Bloomberg tally last week.1 This brought total Cartel compliance to ~ 60% of the agreed cuts, which, as we noted in our 2017 Commodity Outlook in December, would be sufficient to achieve the Agreement's goal of pulling inventories in the OECD down by ~ 10% by 3Q17.2 Non-OPEC producers also appear to be complying with the Agreement. Notable among them is Russia, which is ahead of its commitment with cuts of close to 120k b/d in January, due partly to extreme cold in Siberian fields. We expect cuts in Russia to average 200k b/d in 1Q17, going to 300k b/d in 2Q17. These cuts will allow demand to outstrip supply in 1H17 and into year-end. By early- to mid-3Q17, draws to OECD storage of 300mm bbl can be expected, without extending the OPEC - Russia production agreement (Chart of the Week). We expect to see these cuts show up in OECD inventory data this month and next and continue into the end of 2017. For non-OECD states, the draws will show up in JODI data beginning in March.3 The physical deficits - i.e., supply less than demand - will force storage to draw, backwardating the WTI forward curve later this year (Chart 2).4 If markets are not surprised by a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of a U.S. border-adjustment tax (BAT), or a too-aggressive tightening by the Fed as it seeks to normalize monetary policy, we expect the drawdown in inventories to continue keeping markets backwardated. Even with production returning to pre-Agreement levels in 2H17 in states with the capacity to expand and reliably sustain production - Gulf Arab producers, Russia and U.S. shales - we expect storage to continue to draw through the year and into 2018 (Chart 3). Chart 2We Continue To Expect Backwardation Chart 3Storage Drawdown On Track In 4Q16 the impact of the higher Kuwaiti and UAE output is apparent, along with higher Russian production. This put more crude on the market, which found its way into storage late in 4Q16 and early 1Q17, reversing the trend in draws seen earlier in 2H16. This put the market back in a temporary surplus condition, with the result being more storage will have to be worked off in 1H17 than our earlier estimates indicated. But these draws will occur, following the implementation of the production accord. Extending The KSA - Russia Deal Beyond June Is Unnecessary In our estimates, OPEC crude production increases by ~ 850k b/d in 2H17 versus 1H17 levels. Despite this recovery, the storage drawdown continues. Our modeling assumes Gulf OPEC will account for slightly more than +1mm b/d growth, and non-Gulf OPEC will see production continue to fall by 170k b/d. Russia's total liquids production goes from 10.95mm b/d in 1H17 to 11.34mm b/d in 2H17. We estimate U.S. shale production grows at an average rate of ~ 300k b/d in 2H17, while total U.S. liquids production increases 720k b/d over the same interval. Setting aside the possibility of a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of too-aggressive Fed tightening or a border-adjusted tax becoming the law of the land, both of which would depress demand and raise production ex U.S., we expect the crude-oil market to remain backwardated next year. The globally synchronized upturn in GDP will keep demand robust, with growth coming in close to even with this year's rate of ~ 1.50mm b/d. We have global liquids production and OPEC crude output growing less than 1.0% next year. We believe the market is overestimating the resilience of offshore production next year, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, based on the stout performance put in last year and expected for this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, U.S. production growth since October has almost exclusively been from the Gulf of Mexico's new projects. Output in the Gulf continues to increase due to the lagged effect of final investment decisions made during 2012 - 2014, when WTI prices were consistently trading above $100/bbl. GOM production will peak in 2017 then decline in 2018 due to lack of new investments made since 2014. Indeed, as "increasing decline rates overwhelm a shrinking inventory of new projects, GOM production should peak sometime in 2017 and then start decreasing. The EIA's estimate for another 200,000 b/d increase in GOM production in 2017 seems overly-optimistic."5 Once this becomes apparent to the market, we believe backwardation will reassert itself and persist into 2018. The backwardation of the forward curve structure will affect U.S. shale production economics in 2018. However, our base case is for U.S. shale-oil production in the "Big Four" basins - Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara - to grow 700k b/d next year, given the current structure of the WTI forwards, which were taken higher along with the WTI price rally at the front of the curve. This triggered the revival of rig counts; however, we want to point out that different curve shapes at different price levels produce different expected rig-count responses.6 Chart 4Barring a Policy Shock Demand Will Remain Robust Global Demand Firing On All Cylinders Robust demand growth - ~ +1.50mm b/d in 2017 and 2018 in our modeling - provides the impetus for the continued draws in storage this year and next (Chart 4). We revised our demand estimates for 2015 - 16 in line with the IEA's just-revised assessment of global consumption published in its January 2017 Oil Market Report.7 The IEA brought 2016 oil demand growth up to 1.50mm b/d, in line with our earlier estimates, but significantly revised 2015 demand growth upward to 2.0mm b/d. The Agency expects higher prices to crimp demand this year, taking it to 1.30mm b/d; our estimate, however, is higher, largely on the back of the first global synchronized growth we've seen since the Global Financial Crisis, which will be supported by accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, all else equal.8 Investment Implications Our analysis suggests there will be no need to extend the OPEC - Russia production accord into 2H17. In addition, it reinforces our view markets will backwardate later this year and stay backwardated in 2018, provided we do not see a BAT-induced rally in the USD, or an overly aggressive Fed normalization trajectory. As we noted in previous research, a BAT would lift the value of the USD, which would lower demand ex U.S. and raise supply at the margin.9 We make the odds of a BAT becoming the law of the land in the U.S. this year 50:50, so this is a non-trivial risk. This would be unambiguously bearish for oil prices. While we do not expect oil to be included among the imported commodities subject to a BAT, we do, nonetheless, expect the imposition of a BAT to lift the USD by 10%. This, coupled with the 5% increase in the greenback we'd already penciled in due to the Fed's monetary-policy normalization, will lift the USD 15% if it goes through. Should this occur, we would be preparing for prices to again fall below $50/bbl and push back to the $40/bbl area, which would cause supply and capex to once again contract significantly. That said, we are reinstating our long front-to-back WTI recommendation (long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI), given our updated balances assessment. Our expectation for inventories to continue to draw after the OPEC - Russia production-cutting agreement expires in June supports this recommendation. In addition, if we do see a BAT in the U.S., we believe markets will take the deferred WTI curve significantly lower in expectation of reduced demand and higher marginal supplies that almost surely will ensue in 2018. While the Dec/17 contract also will trade lower, more damage to prices will occur in 2018 contracts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC Cuts Oil Output, But More Work Needed to Fulfill Deal," published by Bloomberg February 2, 2017. Iraq stands out among OPEC producers agreeing to cut, but apparently not following through as diligently as the rest of the Gulf Arab states; we are assuming production of 4.5mm b/d for 1H17, going to 4.6mm b/d in 2H17 for Iraq. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 JODI refers to the Joint Organisations Data Initiative, a supranational producer-consumer oil-market data provider headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4 "Backwardation" describes a forward price curve in which the price for a commodity for prompt delivery (e.g., tomorrow) exceeds the price of a commodity delivered in the future (e.g., next year). It is the opposite of a contango curve structure. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy "Gulf Of Mexico Oil Production Likely To Peak In 2017," dated January 11, 2017, available nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 In next week's report, we will present scenario analysis of shale-oil production as a function of WTI forward curve shape - i.e., the implications of backwardation for shale rig counts. This will update our assessments of price sensitivities to interest rates and USD movements. 7 Please see the IEA's Oil Market Report of 19 January 2017. 8 We discuss this in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy feature article entitled "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Taking A BAT To Commodities," dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

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

Special Report

Highlights In this report, we outline our tactical, cyclical and long term views on French government bonds, linked to France's political situation, cyclical dynamics, and structural outlook. Tactical View: Marine Le Pen does not stand a realistic chance of winning France's presidency. As policy uncertainty recedes, the government bond yield differential between France and Germany will narrow. Go long French OATs versus German Bunds. Cyclical View: French GDP growth should surprise to the upside, while inflation will at least match the consensus expectation in 2017. Both of those trends will force French bond yields higher. To express that view, move to a below-benchmark duration stance within the French component of global hedged bond portfolios. Secular View: France has been, and will probably continue to be, difficult to reform. While a pro-reform government is our expectation from the upcoming election, boosting French productivity growth will be an uphill climb. Feature Chart 1Fade The France Spread Widening After the stunning political victories in the U.K. and U.S. last year, there has been considerable speculation as to which country will fall next to the "populist wave." With a major political party aiming to take the country out of the Euro Area, France has naturally popped up on investors' radar screens. While it is easy to draw a parallel from Brexit to Trump to a possible "Frexit", the political and economic realities in France are very different from those in the U.K. and U.S. The upcoming presidential election will not provide a similar surprise, but could impact the economy's long trajectory. Meanwhile, this economy should beat expectations in the next twelve months. In this Special Report, we lay out our views on France from a political, cyclical and structural perspective and introduce two French bond trade ideas to benefit in the short and medium term. Tactical View: No Political Shocker Ahead In the short term (3-6 months), the domestic political landscape will dictate a large part of France's bond market price action leading up to the two-round French presidential election in April and May. Lately, political uncertainty surrounding the election has had a clear negative impact on French government bond yields (Chart 1). The spread between the benchmark 10-year French OAT and German Bund has widened 46bps off of the 2016 lows and is now close to levels seen during the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-9. The spread is still well below the wides seen during the European debt crisis in 2011-12, when markets were pricing in a serious Eurozone break-up risk. The current more moderate level seems reasonable to us, as a significantly wider spread to compensate for the political risk of a potential "Frexit" is not required, given the long odds of a Trump/Brexit-like upset victory. Last week, our colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy services published a joint Special Report updating their view on the election, and concluded that Le Pen's odds of victory now stand at 15%.1 Either Francois Fillon (who is currently embroiled in a corruption scandal) or Emanuel Macron will win the French presidency, both of whom are running on structural reform platforms that should be market friendly. Moreover, Marine Le Pen has only a long-shot possibility to win the French presidential election, for several reasons:2 Assuming Le Pen becomes one of the final two candidates in the run-off election after the first round of voting in April, her probability of winning is low, as she continues to trail her centrist opponents by a massive 20% in the polls. That lead would have to fall to 3-5%, within the margin of error of the polling data, before investors would have to worry seriously about a Le Pen victory. Le Pen's personal approval rating peaked in 2012 (Chart 2). It fell despite the European refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth over the past two years, all of which should have helped boost her popularity. The problem for Le Pen is that 70% of the French support the euro (bottom panel), and she is running on an explicit campaign promise to try and pull France out of the euro if she wins the presidency. Leaving the euro area would mean a redenomination cost for Baby Boomer retirees, higher interest rates, higher inflation, and a likely economic recession. Judging by the high level of support for the euro, we suspect that the French population understands these risks. Given BCA's relatively sanguine view of the true political risks of the French election, the recent spread widening represents a tactical trade opportunity to go the other way and position for French outperformance. A Le Pen defeat will cause French policy uncertainty to recede and French bond yields will converge back to German levels. Vanishing uncertainty and lower bond yields will further fuel the current economic recovery, as explained in the next section. Bottom Line: Marine Le Pen does not stand a realistic chance of winning France's presidency. As policy uncertainty recedes, the government bond yield differential between France and Germany will narrow. Go long French OATs versus German Bunds on a tactical basis (a trade we are adding to our Overlay Trades list on Page 20). Cyclical View: An Outperforming Economy Over the medium-term (6 to 12 months), the cyclical dynamics of French growth and inflation, as well as potential shifts in Euro Area monetary policy, will drive the evolution of French bond yields. On this basis, there is room for French yields to rise in absolute terms. Current pricing in the French forward curve has the 10-year government bond yield reaching 1.40% by the end of 2017, up 26bps from the current level. That yield target will be easily exceeded based on the budding upturns in French economic growth and inflation. A low growth hurdle to overcome The Bloomberg survey of economists currently pencils in a French GDP growth forecast of 1.3% in 2017, almost unchanged from 1.2% in 2016. That figure should be surpassed, in our view. The current situation component of the French ZEW economic sentiment survey has spiked recently but still sits far from previous peaks (Chart 3). As this unfinished economic cycle progresses, growth will drift inevitably higher. Chart 2Le Pen Is Not So Well-Liked Chart 3An Un-finished Cycle More specifically, the business sector could positively surprise in 2017. Business sentiment and industrial production already started to hook upward toward the end of 2016, and the December surge in the French Manufacturing PMI signals that the economy is accelerating. Even the previously lagging French service sector PMI has now caught up to the Euro Area average (Chart 4). This upturn looks very well supported. Firms' order books have been replenished, and corporations are now in a position to hike prices, indicating that pricing power has returned (Chart 5). This is a crucial development, it will allow for further increases in corporate profit margins, and, in turn, give them some leeway to lift wages, hire more workers and/or invest anew. Chart 4A Solid Economic Upturn Chart 5Improving Business Sector Outlook Moreover, business cycle dynamics should then boost consumption. An improving labor market has already translated into confidence-building momentum among households. Consumers' disposable income growth has risen steadily, while households' intentions to make important purchases have reached levels not seen since before the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 6). Also, labor slack is diminishing in France, with the number of job seekers falling for the first time in a decade (bottom panel). If French households remain upbeat, the broader economy should do well. Historically, the INSEE survey of households' assessment of the future economic situation has been closely linked to GDP growth. Advancing that series by three months clearly shows that France's growth is set to accelerate. Using a simple regression, growth could reach a 1.7% year-over-year pace in the first half of 2017 (Chart 7). Chart 6Better Fundamentals For French Consumers Chart 7GDP Will Beat Expectations One note of caution on this optimistic French economic outlook comes from capital spending. The elevated political uncertainties from the upcoming election, as well as the potential U.K.-E.U. Brexit negotiations, have left French firms less inclined to expand business through increased investments. However, robust activity in the housing market should support overall gross fixed capital formation, as housing permits sprang to life in 2016 (Chart 8). To ensure that this economic expansion gains momentum, ample credit growth will be paramount. This could be a potential headwind, as France's non-financial private sector credit has reached high levels, especially compared to its European peers (Chart 9). These excesses could act as a speed limit on the overall economy, at some point. Chart 8Housing To Support Overall Capital Formation Chart 9Private Non-Financial Leverage: High However, in the current cycle, this doesn't seem to be the case. Both money and loan growth are accelerating after several years of weakness (Chart 10, top panel). The ECB's Bank Lending Survey, which shows slowly increasing demand for credit (middle panel) and no tightening of lending standards (bottom panel) will help fuel this trend.3 The central bank's loose overall monetary stance will keep this positive credit impulse alive over the course of the year, while also helping exports by keeping the Euro weak. Finally, on the fiscal side, the IMF projects France's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance to go from -0.6% of potential GDP in 2016 to -0.7% in 2017, representing a fiscal thrust of +0.1% (Chart 11). This modest number will obviously not supercharge the current cycle, but does represent a big change from the years of austerity since the last recession. Chart 10A Positive Credit Impulse Chart 11No More Austerity Building inflationary pressure The Bloomberg consensus forecast calls for French consumer price inflation to reach 1.2% in 2017, a modest advance from the current rate of 0.7%. That level should be reached, and likely surpassed, as most inflation measures have already entered an expansionary phase (Chart 12). That trend should persist in 2017 for several reasons: First, French unemployment will soon fall below the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), which typically results in a rise in French underlying CPI inflation soon afterward (Chart 13). Chart 12Inflation Moving Higher Chart 13France Is Close To Full Employment Second, current French inflation appears about half a percentage point too low relative to the unemployment rate, based on the Phillips curve relationship since 2000 (Chart 14). Chart 14Inflation Should Be Higher Third, our French CPI diffusion index is well off the cyclical lows and points towards higher underlying inflation in the months ahead (Chart 15).4 In sum, French inflation will follow, and likely exceed, the current consensus expectation of 1.2%. This is important to appreciate, as inflation was a more important driver of higher nominal bond yields, relative to the real yield component, last year (Chart 15, bottom two panels). There is more to come in 2017. How to position for this view? In terms of valuation, French government bonds still appear quite expensive. Our bond valuation indicator shows that yields remain well below fair value, even after the recent backup (Chart 16). Combine this with our optimistic view on French growth and inflation, and investors should move to reduce duration within the French component of hedged global bond portfolios. Today, we open a new position in our model fixed income portfolio: reducing the exposure in the longest duration (+10 years) bucket in France, and placing the proceeds in the 1-3 year France bucket. This combination will lower our overall French duration exposure by one full year. If yields finish the year higher than currently priced on the forward curve, as we expect, this position will contribute positively to the excess return versus our benchmark. Bottom Line: French GDP growth should surprise to the upside, while inflation will at least match the consensus expectation in 2017. Both of those trends will force French bond yields higher this year. To express that view, move to a below-benchmark duration stance within the French component of global hedged bond portfolios. Chart 15Rising Inflation Will Push Yields Even Higher Chart 16French Bonds: Still Expensive Secular View: A Structural Ceiling On French Yields In the very long run (5 to 10 years), structural considerations are needed to forecast bond yields. Ten years ago, the French forward yield curve was implicitly forecasting that the 10-year French bond yield would be close to 4% today. Currently standing at 1.13%, the market missed the mark by 287bps! The forwards are now priced for the 10-year bond yield to reach 2.84% in ten years, possibly making the same mistake of over-estimating future bond yields. To gauge a fair value of the 10-year bond yield, using nominal potential GDP growth has proved to be useful in the past. From 2004 to 2014, and before the deflationary shock experienced since, France's 10-year bond yield was indeed trading very close to growth in French nominal potential GDP (Chart 17, shaded portion). Chart 17Low Potential Growth Is A Long-Term Cap On French Yields As inflation will most likely return to more "normal" levels in the next few years, the relationship between the two should be reestablished soon. If so, the current 2.84% level on the 10-year French government bond yield, 10-years forward should translate to a nominal potential growth rate of around 2.8% in ten years' time (Chart 17). This outcome would represent an 80bp increase in the rate of trend French nominal potential growth from current levels, which could be difficult to achieve, in our view. Lots of work to do... Most likely, France's nominal potential growth will only slowly grind lower. Faster potential growth could be achieved either through increasing demographic growth or improving productivity. Unfortunately, neither outcome appears imminent. Since the French working age population is already expanding at a very slow pace, and is projected to decelerate in the years ahead, productivity increases are the only candidate to improve potential growth. On that front, a lot needs to be done; many structural weaknesses in the French economy have to be addressed. For years, France has been plagued by weak productivity, which has constrained growth. Compared to its European peers, inefficient use of available capital has led to a loss of competitiveness through higher unit labor costs. Clearly, France needs to improve workers' skills to lift total factor productivity growth (Chart 18). This will become increasingly difficult as France now faces - more than ever - difficulty attracting and retaining talent due to the recent turmoil that has hit the country such as the terrible rise in terrorist attacks. At the source, the poor productivity performance in France is grounded in the overly protective employment system. Like other European countries, high employment costs have led to misallocation of capital, potentially affecting the optimal capital labor input mix and total factor productivity.5 Indeed, friction in the labor market is often cited as the source of the problem. We tend to agree. French workers work too few hours, even fewer than in the Peripheral European economies. As the divide between the unemployment rate of persons under and over 25 years old gets larger, resolving the growing generational disparities has become paramount. Plus, upward mobility opportunities are scant - not everyone gets an equal chance to rise in status in French society (Chart 19). Chart 18Productivity Unlikely To Lift Potential Growth Chart 19Friction In The Labor Market Recent reforms have the potential to fix some problems. The Pacte de Responsabilité et Solidarité (PRS) and the Crédit d'impôt compétitivité emploi (CICE) should help reduce unit labor costs through a reduced labor tax wedge.6 The Macron Law could raise real GDP growth by 0.3 percent per year through 2020, according to the OECD. However, the effectiveness might be fleeting in some other cases. For example, studies by the IMF suggest that the El Khomri Law - aimed at making the labor market more flexible - might have little impact on overall French unemployment, potentially reducing it by only 0.14 percentage points.7 Meanwhile, France's enormous public sector continues to crowd out the private sector. At 54% of GDP, government expenditures are simply too big, forcing the government to tax profits at a whopping 63% rate. This leaves little space for national savings - which now sit at a lowly 21.4% of GDP - to increase (Chart 20). Additionally, France ranks 115th out 136 countries in the Global Competitiveness Report in terms of the burden of government regulation, which further constrains productivity-enhancing investments.8 In sum, boosting potential GDP growth will remain an uphill battle. Everyone agrees that reforms are necessary. But will they happen? ...and France still has a tough crowd to win over It is not impossible that the next president will have a serious structural reform agenda. For example, the most reformist presidential contender, Francois Fillon, has made these proposals in his campaign platform: Abandon the national limit on weekly hours worked and leave that decision to individual companies; Decrease corporate taxation; Allow companies to fire employees when undergoing structural/managerial changes; Extend the retirement age; Cut public spending; Reduce the size of the state by cutting government employees. From a structural perspective, these measures would surely be promising for the future, and would lift French potential GDP growth over time. However, in the populist world we live in, we are skeptical that the electorate will give him an unambiguous mandate of this sort. That kind of mandate usually comes after a crisis, not before. More pain might be needed. Chart 20France's Government: Crowding Out The Private Sector Chart 21"Silent Majority" Wants Reform Moreover, reforming France has always proved very challenging. As such, will Mr. Fillon (or Mr. Macron) really be able to comply with his campaign promises, if elected? Winning a majority at the parliamentary election would be a necessary precondition. Although every President has been given a parliamentary majority since 2002, the elections have not happened yet. Confronting the unions on these measures will prove difficult for the next French president. The latest labor market reform push unveiled last year was met with massive resistance. Surely, deregulation that makes it easier to fire workers will inevitably dissatisfy insiders that benefit from high barriers to entry for new employees. This obstacle will be difficult to remove. In any case, it has always been puzzling why things have to be this way in France. According to economists Yann Algan and Pierre Cahuc, one possible response might lie in the French tendency to distrust their fellow citizen. Their theory, introduced more than ten years ago, posits the following: ...the French people's lack of trust gets in the way of their ability to cooperate, which brings the State to regulate work relations in minute detail. By emptying social dialogue of its content, these interventions prevent the adoption of favorable reforms to improve the function of the job market. Distrust even induces a fear of competition, leading to the set-up of regulatory barriers-to-entry, that create rent-seeking which favors corruption and mutual distrust. The French social model fosters a truly vicious circle. Corporatism and state intervention undermine the mechanisms of solidarity, destroy social dialogue and reinforce mutual distrust - that which in turn feeds categorical demands and the constant call for regulation, and thereby favors the expansion of corporatism and state intervention.9 Of course, their angle on things could sound somewhat extreme. But it might also explain why the issues discussed ten or twenty years ago concerning France's predicament remain mostly the same today. There might be something else besides pure rational thinking at play behind the French citizenry's propensity to stiff-arm reforms. Nonetheless, if these authors are correct, true changes will continue to be hard to come by in France. Meaning this invisible hand of distrust will continue to lead potential GDP growth lower, and, as history dictates, will represent a ceiling on how high long-term French bond yields can ever rise. That said, maybe our view could prove to be too backward looking. The new report co-written by our Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy teams takes a more optimistic view on the chances of French economic reform. They argue that France's recent economic underperformance will motivate its citizens to demand real action from their politicians, as occurred in Australia during the mid-1980s and 1990s and Germany in the 2000s - episodes of real structural reform occurring without any dramatic crisis to prompt them. A desire to compete with Germany economically, combined with government spending excesses and protest fatigue, could be leading France to elect a pro-reform government. As the French polling data shows, there is a "silent majority" in France that would favor supply side reforms (Chart 21). Plus, even those that traditionally favor the status quo, like "blue collar" and "left leaning" employees, are opposing reforms by extremely narrow margins. Undoubtedly, our colleagues raise very good points. As such, we will be watchful to see if reforms gain a greater chance of meaningfully transforming France in the next few years. The onus will be on the reformers to change the system. Bottom Line: France has been, and will probably continue to be, difficult to reform. While a pro-reform government is our expectation from the upcoming election, boosting French productivity growth will be an uphill climb. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution", dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?", dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/pdf/blssurvey_201701.pdf?6c44eff3bac4b858969b9cb71bd4a8fa 4 The diffusion index is the percentage of sectors within the French Consumer Price Index that are growing faster than their 24-month moving average. This indicator leads underlying inflation by 10 months. 5 For further details on this idea, please see "Employment Protection Legislation, Capital Investment and Access to Credit: Evidence from Italy", available at https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/337.html 6 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=44080.0 7 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=44081. 8 http://www3.weforum.org/docs GCR2016-2017/05FullReport TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf 9 http://voxeu.org/article/france-price-suspicion and more on these authors theory on the impact of trust on economic development can be found here: http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/yann%20algan/HB_FinalVersion1.pdf The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Strong Growth & An Easy Fed More than a month has passed since the Fed's latest rate hike and, at least so far, the economy is displaying no ill effects. While the economic data continue to surprise to the upside, Fed rate hike expectations have moderated since mid-December (Chart 1). The combination of accelerating growth and accommodative monetary policy sets the stage for further outperformance in spread product. This message was underscored by last Friday's employment report which showed robust payroll gains of +227k alongside a slight deceleration in wage growth. This is consistent with an environment where growth remains above trend but the recovery in inflation proceeds more gradually. Against this back-drop we favor overweight positions in spread product and TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, while also positioning for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. While we would not rule out a near-term correction in risk assets, due to extended positioning and elevated policy uncertainty, we would view any correction as a buying opportunity given the supportive growth and monetary policy back-drop. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in January (Chart 2). The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month and, at 121 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). In a recent report1 we examined historical excess returns to corporate bonds given different levels of core PCE inflation. We found that excess returns are best when year-over-year core PCE is below 1.5%. This should not be surprising since an environment of low inflation is most likely to coincide with extremely accommodative monetary policy. When inflation is between 1.5% and 2% (year-over-year core PCE is currently 1.7%), average monthly excess returns are close to zero and a 90% confidence interval places them between -19 bps and +17 bps. Excess returns do not turn decisively negative until core PCE is above 2%. Given the Fed's desire to nurture a continued recovery in inflation, we expect corporate bond excess returns to be low, but positive. The Technology sector is relatively defensive and is close to neutrally valued according to our model (Table 3). In addition, our Geopolitical Strategy service has observed that many of the firms in this sector carry significant exposure to China, a risk as U.S. protectionism ramps up.2 We therefore downgrade our position in Technology from overweight to neutral, and upgrade our positions in Wirelines, Media & Entertainment and Other Utilities from underweight to neutral. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 124 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 21 bps on the month and, at 376 bps, it is currently 144 bps below its historical average. As we highlighted in our year-end Special Report,3 the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse this year, mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Given the improving default outlook, last week we upgraded high-yield from underweight to neutral. Still-tight valuation is the reason we maintain a neutral allocation as opposed to overweight. Our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses - is currently 152 bps (Chart 3). This is close to one standard deviation below its long-run average. Historically, we have found that a default-adjusted spread between 150 bps and 200 bps is consistent with positive 12-month excess returns 65% of the time, but with an average 12-month excess return of -164 bps. With the spread in this range a 90% confidence interval places 12-month excess returns between -500 bps and +171 bps. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in January. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 5 bps in January, driven by a 7 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread. The rate component of the yield held flat, while the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined by 2 bps. MBS spreads remain extremely tight, relative both to history and Aaa-rated credit. Historically, the option-adjusted spread is correlated with net MBS issuance and robust issuance will eventually lead this spread wider. At least so far, net MBS issuance shows no sign of slowing down. While refinancing applications declined alongside the recent spike in Treasury yields, purchase applications have remained resilient (Chart 4). The Fed ceasing the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio would also significantly add to MBS supply. As we explained in a recent report,4 we expect the Fed will not start to wind down its balance sheet until 2018. However, if growth is stronger than we expect there is a chance the process could begin near the end of this year. In that same report we also observed that nominal MBS spreads are very low relative to both the slope of the yield curve and implied rate volatility. This poses a risk to MBS in the near-term. Government-Related: Cut To Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in January. Sovereign bonds outperformed by 75 bps, while Foreign and Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 6 bps and 14 bps, respectively. Local Authorities outperformed by 34 bps and Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps. This week we downgrade the government-related sector from overweight to underweight, although we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to both the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors. Sovereigns are not attractive compared to corporate credit, according to our model, and will struggle to outperform if the dollar remains in a bull market, as we expect it will. A stronger dollar increases the cost of debt servicing from the perspective on non-U.S. issuers. Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities both appear attractive relative to corporate credit, after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration. Foreign Agencies in particular will perform well if oil prices continue to trend higher. Supranationals offer very little spread, and are best thought of as a hedge in spread widening environments. Domestic Agency debt can also be thought of in this vein, but with the added risk that spreads start to widen if any progress is made toward GSE reform. While any concrete movement on GSE reform is still a long way off, the new administration has brought the topic back into the headlines and this has led to some increased volatility in Domestic Agency spreads in recent weeks (Chart 5). Municipal Bonds: Upgrade To Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 2% in January and currently sits just below its post-crisis average. Even though net state & local government borrowing edged higher in Q4, issuance has rolled over in recent weeks and fund flows have sharply reversed course (Chart 6). As a result, our tactical yield ratio model - based on issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that yield ratios are very close to fair value. Although the average M/T ratio still appears expensive if we include the global economic policy uncertainty index as an additional explanatory variable.5 While we remain cautious on the long-term prospects for state & local government health, we expect that improving trends in fund flows and issuance will support yield ratios for the next several months. Eventually we expect that increased state & local government investment will lead to higher issuance, but this will take some time to play out. In the meantime it will be crucial to monitor the federal government's progress on tax reform, particularly if there appears to be any appetite for removing municipal bonds' tax exempt status. Our sense is that the tax exemption will remain in place due to the administration's stated preference for increased infrastructure spending. But that outcome is highly uncertain. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview After a volatile end to last year, the Treasury curve was relatively unchanged in January. The 2/10 slope steepened by 1 basis point on the month and the 5/30 slope steepened by 2 bps. In previous reports we detailed how the combination of accelerating economic growth and still-accommodative Fed policy will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen this year. This steepening will be driven by a continued, but gradual, recovery in long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation back to pre-crisis levels (2.4% to 2.5%). Once inflation expectations return to pre-crisis levels, it is possible that the Fed will shift to a monetary policy that is focused more on tamping out inflation than supporting growth. At that point the curve will shift from a bear-steepening to a bear-flattening regime. However, as we posited in a recent report,6 it could take until the end of this year before TIPS breakevens return to pre-crisis levels and core inflation returns to the Fed's target. To position for a steeper Treasury curve, we recommend that investors favor the 5-year bullet versus a duration-equivalent 2/10 barbell. Not only will the bullet outperform the barbell as the curve steepens, but the 5-year bullet is currently very cheap relative to the 2/10 slope (Chart 7). This trade has so far returned +29 bps since initiation on December 20. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 58 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 10 bps on the month and, at 2.05%, it remains well below its pre-crisis range of 2.4% to 2.5%. The Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target, and will quickly adopt a more dovish policy stance if breakevens fall. This "Fed put" is a key reason why we remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, although we expect the uptrend in breakevens will moderate during the next few months. As we detailed in a recent report,7 while accelerating wage growth will ensure that inflation remains in an uptrend, the impact from wages will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI have also rolled over recently, suggesting that inflation readings will soften during the next couple of months. The anchor from slowly rising inflation will prevent TIPS breakevens from increasing too quickly, and breakevens are also too high compared to the reading from our TIPS Financial model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (Chart 8). At the moment, only pipeline measures of inflationary pressure such as the ISM prices paid index (panel 4) suggest that breakevens will move rapidly higher in the near term. Remain overweight TIPS but expect the uptrend in breakevens to moderate in the months ahead. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in January. Aaa-rated issues outperformed by 5 bps while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 17 bps. Credit card issues outperformed by 8 bps and auto loans outperformed by 5 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 3 bps on the month. At 51 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level. As was noted in the Appendix to our year-end Special Report,8 consumer ABS provided better volatility-adjusted excess returns than all fixed income sectors except Baa-rated corporates and Caa-rated high-yield in 2016. With ABS spreads still elevated relative to other similarly risky fixed income sectors, we expect this risk-adjusted performance to continue. The spread on Aaa-rated credit card ABS tightened 4 bps in January, and now sits at 49 bps. Meanwhile, the spread on Aaa-rated auto loan ABS tightened 1 bp on the month, and now sits at 54 bps. In early November we recommended favoring Aaa-rated credit cards relative to Aaa-rated auto loans. Collateral credit quality between credit cards and auto loans is clearly diverging in favor of credit cards (Chart 9, bottom panel), and in early November, our measure of the volatility adjusted breakeven spread (days-to-breakeven) was displaying no discernible valuation advantage in autos. Since November, however, autos have started to look more attractive (Chart 9, panel 3). If auto loan spreads continue to widen relative to credit cards we may soon shift back into autos. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month, and is now close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month, and currently sits at 51 bps. The spread offered from Agency CMBS is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (52 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (30 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model The current reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes the global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.44% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.08%. The lower fair value is the result of a large spike in the uncertainty index in November that has yet to unwind (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. It is for this reason that we recently moved back to a below-benchmark duration stance.9 For further details on our Global PMI models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.44%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin", dated January 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes for 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Another Update", dated January 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Food price deflation bodes well for increased volumes, and by extension, packaging stocks. Upgrade to overweight. Prospects for intensifying market and economic volatility argue for reestablishing a portfolio hedge in gold shares. The tech sector underperforms when there is upward pressure on inflation, and the next twelve months is unlikely to prove an exception. Stay clear. Recent Changes S&P Containers & Packaging - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Gold Mining Shares - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Table 1 Feature Equity markets finally took a breather last week, as investors digested spotty earnings and began to discount the possible economic downside of U.S. isolationism. While profits should dictate the trend in stocks over the long haul, equity valuations have soared since the election, it is critical to consider the durability of this trend and other influences at this juncture. The recent string of positive economic surprises raises the risk that monetary conditions will tighten further, especially amidst rising inflation pressures and a tight labor market. As such, the broad market remains in a dangerous overshoot phase, predicated on hopes for a sustained non-inflationary global economic mini-boom. The risk is that these hopes are dashed by nationalistic policy blunders (i.e. protectionism and trade barriers) or a more muted and drawn out improvement in global economic growth than double-digit earnings growth forecasts would imply. There appears to be full buy-in to a durable bullish economic/profit outcome. We have constructed a 'Complacency-Anxiety' Indicator (CAI), using a number of variables that gauge investor positioning, sentiment and risk on/off biases (Chart 1). The CAI is at its highest level ever, signaling extreme confidence/conviction in the outlook for equities. While timing market peaks is difficult, because momentum can persist for longer than seems rational, the level of investor complacency is disturbingly high given that policy uncertainty is such a large economic threat. Global economic growth has never accelerated when global economic policy uncertainty has been this high (Chart 2, shown inverted). Chart 1Complacency Reigns Chart 2Uncertainty Is A Growth Impediment If rhetoric about anti-globalization measures turns into reality, that will deal a serious blow to burgeoning economic confidence before it translates into actual economic growth. Thus, the risk of sudden market downdrafts has risen to its highest level of this bull market. Chart 3 shows that positive economic surprises remain primarily sentiment/confidence driven, rather than from upside in hard economic data. To be sure, the stock market trades off of 'soft data' given its leading properties, but the size of the current gap is unusually large and reinforces that a big jump in 'hard data' surprises is already discounted. This gap represents a latent risk, as it did in the spring of 2011 just before the summertime equity market swoon. Chart 3A Big Gap Means Big Shoes To Fill Worryingly, the behavior of corporate insiders suggests that their confidence does not match their share price valuations. According to Barron's1, the insider sell/buy ratio has soared to an extremely bearish level for markets. For context, their gauge is close to 60; anything over 20 is deemed bearish while less than 12 falls into the bullish zone. Chart 4An Increasing Supply Of Stock The spike in secondary issuance corroborates insider selling (Chart 4). Insiders would not be unloading their shares if they felt earnings prospects would outperform what is discounted in current valuations. Even the pace of share buybacks has slowed considerably, to the point where the number of shares outstanding (excluding financials) has moved higher for the first time in 6 years (Chart 4). An increase in the supply of shares, from sources that have incentive to sell when the reward/risk tradeoff is unattractive, is a yellow flag. All of this argues for maintaining a capital preservation mindset rather than chasing market euphoria in the near run. Elevated complacency suggests that the consensus is focused solely on return rather than risk. It will be more constructive to put money to work when anxiety levels are higher than at present. This week we recommend adding a defensive materials sector gem, buying some portfolio insurance and we update our tech sector views. Packaging Stocks Are Gift Wrapped While our materials sector Cyclical Macro Indicator is hitting new lows, this is often a sign that the countercyclical S&P containers & packaging index deserves a second look. We have shown in past research that its strongest relative performance phases often occur when the overall materials sector is struggling. This group offers a more attractively valued alternative to play a transportation recovery than either rails or air freight, as discussed in last week's Report. From a macro perspective, deflation in global export prices should provide a strong tailwind. Why? Low prices spur volume growth. Global export volumes have begun to rebound, consistent with the increase in U.S. port traffic and intermodal (consumer) goods shipments (Chart 5). Any increase in global trade would bolster sentiment toward this high volume industry. Companies in this index are also highly exposed to the food and beverage business since the bulk of consumable non-durable goods products require packaging materials. As such, its fortunes rise and fall with swings in food prices. When food inflation is rising, consumers spend less in real terms, undermining the volume of food packaging demand. The opposite is also true. The current contraction in the food CPI has spawned a boom in food consumption, as measured by the surge in real (volumes) personal outlays on food & beverage products (Chart 6). This phenomenon is also true on a global basis, as food exports are booming (Chart 6, bottom panel), a remarkable development given U.S. dollar appreciation. Chart 5Stealth Play On Volume Growth Chart 6Booming Food Demand... Chart 7... Should Drive Up Multiples If food and beverage consumption stays robust, then the relative valuation expansion in packaging stocks will persist (food demand shown advanced, Chart 7). Increased demand for packaging products has become evident in the budding rebound in pricing power (Chart 8). The producer price index for containers has picked up nicely on a 6-month rate of change basis, albeit it is still low in annual growth terms. Nevertheless, any increase in pricing power would support profit margins if volume expansion persists, given the industry's disciplined productivity focus. Headcount remains in check, likely reflecting automation and investment, and is falling decisively relative to overall employment (Chart 8). The implication is that profit margins have a chance to outperform, particularly if energy prices stay range-bound (Chart 8). U.S. protectionism, and/or a continued rise in bond yields on the back of improving global economic momentum constitute relative performance risks to this position. Chart 9 shows that relative performance is mostly inversely correlated with global bond yields, given that it is a disinflationary winner. Chart 8Productivity Gains Chart 9A Risk Factor However, the global economy has already been through a phase of upside surprises. Moreover, now that China has moved to cool housing, investors should temper expectations for more stimulus to cause Chinese growth to accelerate. Conversely, economic disappointment could materialize before midyear if financial conditions tighten further. In sum, packaging stocks offer attractive exposure within an otherwise unattractive S&P materials sector. Bottom Line: Raise the S&P containers & packaging index to overweight. Gold: Back To Overweight As A Portfolio Hedge Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Thereafter, the equity risk premium melted, dimming appetite for portfolio insurance (Chart 10). Moreover, bond yields rose in response to firming economic expectations, increasing the opportunity cost of holding an income-free asset like gold. However, in the absence of a global economic boom, which seems unlikely, and if trade barriers are erected and policy uncertainty continues to escalate, there is a limit to how high real rates can rise. Potential GDP growth remains low throughout the world, weighed down by excessive debt, weak productivity and deflationary demographics (Chart 11, second panel). Chart 10End Of Correction? Chart 11Structurally Bullish A revival in market volatility and an unwinding of previously frothy technical conditions have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month (Chart 12). The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. If the yield curve does not steepen anew, and interest rate expectations move laterally, then the U.S. dollar is less likely to be a barrier to gold price gains. Sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower in recent months, reversing last summer's buying frenzy (Chart 12). Speculative positions have also been unwound (Chart 12). Netting it out, the surge in U.S. policy uncertainty, prospects for economic disappointment relative to increasingly elevated expectations and any pause in the U.S. dollar rally support reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge, especially now that overbought conditions have been unwound (Chart 13). Chart 12No Longer Frothy Chart 13Time To Buy Hedges Bottom Line: Return to an overweight position in gold mining shares, using the GDX as a proxy. A Tec(h)tonic Shift Our Special Report published in early-December showed that the tech sector underperforms when inflation pressures accelerate. Companies in the S&P technology sector are typically mature and have shifted from reinvesting for growth to paying dividends and buying back stock. Thus, the rise in bond yields and headline inflation imply higher discount rates and by extension, lower valuations, all other things equal, for the long duration tech sector (Chart 14). Tech companies exist in a deflationary business model mindset. While relative pricing power had been in an uptrend since 2011, it has recently relapsed into the deflationary zone (Chart 15, middle panel). As shown in last Monday's Weekly Report, the tech sector is one of the few suffering from deteriorating pricing power. Chart 14Stiff Headwinds Chart 15Pricing Power Disadvantage Among the broad eleven sectors, tech stocks have the highest international sales exposure, so a higher dollar is also a net negative for exports, revenues and by extension profit growth, relative to the broad market. Industry sales growth is nil, significantly trailing the S&P 500's recent pick up in top line growth rate. History shows that tech relative performance is negatively correlated with the U.S. dollar in the latter stages of a currency bull market. While the temptation to position for an increase in capital spending via the tech sector is high, data do not show any demand improvement. Tech new order growth is decelerating. The tech new orders-to-inventories ratio is on the verge of contracting, and further weakness would herald downward pressure on forward earnings estimates (Chart 16). Net earnings revisions have swung violently downward recently. Any prolonged de-rating would warn of negative share price momentum given the tight correlation between the two (Chart 16). Meanwhile, the loss of tech sector competitiveness and a retreat from globalization via protectionism de-globalization pose serious headwinds to the industry's longer-term prospects. Return on equity is already ebbing, reflecting more intense profit margin pressure from the surge in wage growth and a lack of revenue gains. As a result, EBITDA growth has been non-existent (Chart 17). Chart 16Momentum Is Fading Chart 17Growth Remains Elusive Chart 18Profits Set To Underperform All of these factors are encapsulated in our S&P technology operating profit model, which has an excellent record in forecasting tech earnings. Chart 18 shows that tech profits are likely to contract as the year progresses, a far cry from what is expected for the broad market and the 450bps of profit outperformance embedded in analyst forecasts in the coming 12 months. Bottom Line: Reducing tech exposure on price strength is a prudent strategy. Stay underweight. 1 http://www.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-instrans.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights Signing executive orders and memoranda post-Inauguration is a common tactic for new presidents. Unfortunately for investors, political rhetoric has caused uncertainty to surge, while actions affecting profitability have been minimal. The potential for radical changes to trade policy changes should not be underestimated. However, details about timing and contours are too vague to be of any support to potential industry-specific beneficiaries. Fed policymakers will focus primarily now on wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. Policymakers increasingly believe the economy is operating at full employment. Feature Chart 1Policy Uncertainty Surge It has been a confusing two weeks in Washington. Since taking oath, President Trump has signed eighteen executive orders and presidential memoranda.1 This is not uncommon: Barack Obama signed an equal amount during his first week of his first presidential term, and executive orders are a frequent tactic used by new presidents to quickly deliver on campaign promises. Unfortunately for investors, Trump's signature has not yet found its way to policies that alter the profitability of U.S. businesses and/or clearly lower the risk premium for financial assets (although at the time of writing, there are rumors about an order that will affect Dodd-Frank). Instead, there has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric that has caused political uncertainty to spike higher (Chart 1). We have warned in past weekly reports that it would be difficult for equity prices to sustain gains built on the premise that a new American government will succeed in implementing a pro-business strategy while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform and foreign policy blunders. Actions under the new administration so far support this view. On Trade: Trade is the area of most confusion thus far in the Trump presidency. As our Geopolitical team highlighted in a recent report,2 the new White House seems focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down and will attempt to do so by using three primary tools: Protectionism, possibly in the form of a "destination-based border adjustment tax," as discussed in our Special Report two weeks ago.3 Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. and has insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption, though details are scant. Structural Demands: Trump and team appear ready to lob threats at other countries with trade surpluses, such as China - by charging the country with currency manipulation. Note that the above tools are in the White House's toolbox, but are yet to be employed. In terms of concrete action to date, President Trump has signed orders to pull out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). But this was a non-event since the TPP was never ratified by Congress. Takeaway: The potential for radical changes to trade policy should not be underestimated. However, details about timing and contours are too vague to be of any support to potential industry-specific beneficiaries. On the flipside, confusing and vague rhetoric should not (yet) form the basis of a negative economic and profit outlook. On Infrastructure: Trump signed an executive order to expedite environmental reviews for high-profile infrastructure projects. This executive order may expedite already approved projects, but any new spending requires approval from Congress. The budget will be announced only in mid- to late- April. Moreover, it is still an open question as to whether Congressional Republicans will try to axe government spending. Senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years! That would amount to a severe fiscal drag, rather than the much hoped-for fiscal thrust expected from infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Takeaway: As we have argued in the past, infrastructure spending could provide a fillip to U.S. growth, but at minimum, investors should not expect that to occur until late 2017 or 2018. On Taxes: None of the executive orders or memoranda directly address taxes. However, a majority of pundits believe that Trump's executive order on January 25 to Build The Wall with Mexico will be funded by U.S. taxpayers. Takeaway: Tax reform requires congressional approval. There has been no step forward as yet for a more market-friendly tax backdrop. On Regulation: On January 30, President Trump signed an executive order stating that for every new regulation proposed, two existing ones would be repealed. On the surface, this seems like excellent news for businesses, especially smaller ones that consistently argue that "red tape" is a major problem for their companies (Chart 2). After all, the U.S. ranks very poorly among global peers on how easy it is to start a business (Table 1). Note that the World Bank assigns the U.S. a much higher overall score for ease of doing business (8th), but this is due to high scores in only two areas: access to credit and bankruptcy protection laws! Chart 2(Part II) Regulation Is A Problem Table 1(Part I) Regulation Is A Problem Unfortunately, the language of the executive order is sufficiently vague that it is not clear what impact there will actually be. First, it is impossible to know which agencies and branches of government the order applies to. Second, it is not clear that a President has the legal authority to mandate the number of regulations, i.e. this executive order may be impossible to uphold. The President also signed a memorandum to streamline and reduce the regulatory burden for manufacturers. Though there is no immediate impact on businesses, the memorandum opens a 60 day window for the secretary of commerce to consult stakeholders. Takeaway: The President is serious about deregulation, but if anything, the 2-for-1 regulation order only serves to underscore that unwinding the regulatory burden is a complicated process that is unlikely to be achieved in the first 100 days of office. The bottom line is that the new administration has been busy, but little of their work thus far has been of direct concern to financial markets and underlying profitability. Instead, policy uncertainty has risen: protectionism, de-regulation and tax reform are all high on their agenda, but details are scant. This has left investors with little visibility. Our view is that the underpinnings of a self-reinforcing recovery are in place and thus will fuel outperformance of stocks relative to bonds on an intermediate time horizon (see last week's Special Report and also below).4 However, the rise in policy uncertainty serves to solidify our conviction that at current prices, risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction. Indeed, although not uniformly bearish, equity technical readings are beginning to herald a more treacherous phase ahead. Equity Technicals: Mixed Messages We are monitoring technical indicators for warning of a near-term equity pullback within the context of a longer term bull market. So far, the message is mixed. For example, our composite technical indicator is in the middle of its range and is not heralding danger. However, sentiment readings are at a bullish extreme. Our composite sentiment indicator remains near historic highs, which tends to be a good contrarian indicator (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the number of stocks above their 30 week and 10 week averages has also shot higher. Importantly, insiders are taking advantage of the price rally to sell their stock. The insider sell/buy ratio has soared to levels that typically herald corrections. Somewhat curiously, the VIX index - a measure of the cost of insurance - remains at bargain basement levels. This suggests that investors may be complacent to a near-term correction. Overall, sentiment readings have become extreme as has price momentum. As highlighted above, we expect that the near term catalyst for a pullback will likely center around policy disappointment. A more encouraging intermediate term outlook is supported by stronger economic fundamentals and, at least for now, a go-slow Fed. Fed & Economy Last week's FOMC policy statement included only minor tweaks from the previous one. Policymakers were silent as to how they view the impact on growth and inflation from the new Administration. Data released since the December minutes - when it appeared that the committee was shifting to a less dovish stance - have supported the Fed's more optimistic outlook. For example, the ISM manufacturing is trending higher, while the non-manufacturing index continues to be strong (Chart 4). On the manufacturing side, the composite index rose again in January, as the sector recovers from an energy-led recession. New orders held onto earlier impressive gains. The new orders-to-inventories ratio ticked down, but remains elevated, suggesting that there is more upside for industrial production in the coming months. Chart 3Equity Technicals: Mixed Message Chart 4Positive Economic Momentum In addition, as highlighted in our January 16 Weekly Report, conditions are ripe for a rebound in consumer spending.5 As confidence in the employment backdrop rises, the likelihood for a lower savings rate improves. Indeed, the January employment report, released on Friday, surprised to the upside, as non-farm payrolls grew by 227 000 (Chart 5). Despite the strong payrolls growth, the unemployment rate ticked higher to 4.8% due to an increase in the participation rate and average hourly earnings increased by a meager 0.1% m/m. Still, we expect that wages will rise as the labor market steadily tightens and Fed policymakers will focus primarily now on wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. To this end, more policymakers are making the case that the economy is at full employment. In a speech in mid-January, San Francisco Fed president Williams argued that the economy has achieved full employment and that the economy only needs to create about 80 000 jobs to keep up with labor force growth.6 The implication is that with an average monthly payroll of 180 000, job creation will quickly put downward pressure on the unemployment rate. The San Francisco Fed has introduced a new, "Non Employment Index"7 which attempts to correct for the structural decline in participation (Chart 6). To construct the index, researchers treat everybody in the population as potentially in the labor force and construct a broader unemployment rate-a "non-employment index." This measure incorporates the unemployed and nonparticipants alike, based on their respective tendency to find jobs. They argue that when one carefully accounts for the availability of nonparticipants this way, the resulting broad non-employment index is consistent with a labor market at full strength. As the top panel of Chart 6 shows, even accounting for participation in this way, the non-employment index gives a very similar message to the standard unemployment rate. Chart 5Solid Employment Fundamentals Chart 6Full Employment = Wage Pressures The bond market is currently priced for two rate hikes later this year. We agree with this assessment, though view any surprises to the upside. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 The latter have less legal weight than an executive order but serve as guidelines for the priorities of government. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 23, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The State Of The Economy In Pictures," dated January 30, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Consumer: The Comeback Kid," dated January 16, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 6 http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/williams-speeches/2017/january/looking-back-looking-ahead economic-forecast/?utm_source=frbsf-home-president-speeches&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=president-speeches 7 https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/non_employment_index