Fiscal

Highlights The cyclical bull market in stocks will last until the end of next year. That said, global equities have become increasingly vulnerable to a correction, so fast-money investors should consider putting on a tactical hedge spanning the next few weeks. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. We ultimately expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a larger budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Feature Rising Odds Of A Stock Market Correction We remain cyclically bullish on global equities based on the expectation that global growth will stay strong over the next 12 months, which should support corporate earnings. Nevertheless, the recent price action in credit markets is disconcerting. Yesterday's relief rally notwithstanding, junk bonds have been selling off in recent weeks, as have EM credit and currencies (Chart 1). We have found that credit trends generally lead the stock market. This raises the risk of an equity correction. The fact that the bull/bear ratio has reached a 30-year high in the weekly Investors Intelligence Sentiment survey (Chart 2), and that the most recent BofA Merrill Lynch Survey shows that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets, only add to our worries. Chart 1Junk Bond Selloff Raises ##br##Risks Of An Equity Correction Junk Bond Selloff Raises Risks Of An Equity Correction Junk Bond Selloff Raises Risks Of An Equity Correction Chart 2Equity Bullish Sentiment:##br## Getting Stretched Equity Bullish Sentiment: Getting Stretched Equity Bullish Sentiment: Getting Stretched Doubts about the ability of Republicans in Congress to push through tax cuts further muddle the picture. We continue to expect a tax bill to be signed into law early next year, but the intention of President Trump and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to include a provision in the bill to rescind the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could greatly complicate this task. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, the economic benefits of the tax legislation are likely to be muted, even if equity prices do rise on the back of lower corporate tax rates. This will make selling the merits of the tax plan to the American people all the more difficult. With all this in mind, we are putting on a short S&P 500 trade recommendation. We are targeting a gain of 5% and putting in a stop-loss of 2%. We will close this trade before the end of the year, so this should be seen as a purely tactical decision appropriate for fast-money investors only. Fiscal Policy Was Tightened Too Early ... Global bond yields plummeted during the Great Recession, but then quickly recovered. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 3.95% in June 2009, while the German bund yield reached 3.72% that same month. Today, output gaps are much smaller globally than they were seven years ago, yet bond yields are substantially lower (Chart 3). Chart 3ASmaller Output Gaps... Smaller Output Gaps... Smaller Output Gaps... Chart 3B...But Lower Bond Yields ...But Lower Bond Yields ...But Lower Bond Yields Many theories have been offered to account for this seemingly paradoxical turn of events. Was it QE? Maybe the Phillips curve broke down? Perhaps investors have steadily revised down their estimate of the neutral rate of interest? One can make compelling arguments in support of all these explanations. However, there is one reason that has received relatively little attention: fiscal policy. Chart 4 shows that fiscal policy was tightened by an average of 4.1% of GDP in the G20 economies between 2010 and 2015. This happened despite the fact that unemployment was still quite high. One could make a half-plausible case that fiscal austerity was necessary in southern Europe, where one country after another was being attacked by the bond vigilantes (although even there, the failure of the ECB to act as a lender of last resort to European sovereigns greatly exacerbated the problem). It is harder to justify the shift towards austerity in countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. which were able to issue debt in their own currencies; or to explain why Germany felt the need to tighten fiscal policy when its structural primary balance was already in surplus. In Japan's case, the 2.9% of GDP in fiscal tightening that occurred between 2013 and the 2015 was a key reason why Abenomics failed to push the country out of deflation. Faced with the reality of what was happening on the fiscal front, central banks had no choice but to step in. They did so by slashing interest rates, in some cases pushing them into negative territory. They also engaged in massive asset purchases. The tsunami of easy money helped to keep economies afloat. But in many countries, slower government debt growth was replaced by faster private-sector debt growth (Chart 5). Debt continued to rise. It just did so in a different form. Chart 4Fiscal Belt-Tightening##br## In 2010-2015 Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Chart 5Private Debt Growth Picked Up##br## Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth Private Debt Growth Picked Up Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth Private Debt Growth Picked Up Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth ... And Is Now Being Eased Too Late The good news is that governments are abandoning their obsession with fiscal austerity. The bad news is that they are doing it at a time when fiscal easing is no longer warranted. Standard economic theory suggests that governments should run budget deficits when unemployment is high, and surpluses when it is low. In the U.S., the unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, 0.6 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. And yet, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are pushing for massive tax cuts which, according to the CBO, would add $1.7 trillion to federal debt over the next ten years, while pushing up the debt-to-GDP ratio by an extra six percentage points to 97% (Chart 6). Limited Supply-Side Benefits Proponents of the legislation argue that lower tax rates will spur growth by so much that they will pay for themselves. This is highly unlikely. Chart 7 shows that major tax cuts in the past have always led to a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, whereas tax hikes have led to a deceleration, or even outright decline, in the debt ratio. Even the much lauded 1981 Reagan tax cuts had to be partially rolled back in 1982 after the budget deficit widened sharply. Chart 6More Red Ink Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Chart 7Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? The growth-enhancing effects of lower tax rates are likely to be smaller at present than they were in the early 1980s. The Reagan tax cuts were introduced when the economy was in the doldrums and government debt levels were much lower than they are today. Cross-border ownership of foreign assets has also increased tremendously since the Reagan era. Foreigners now own more than $10 trillion of U.S. equities, or close to 35% of the total, up from 10% in the early 1980s (Chart 8). This implies that a corporate tax cut would not only represent a massive windfall for foreigners - a bizarre outcome for a self-professed nationalist president - but would mean that a smaller share of capital gains taxes will make their way into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. Personal income tax cuts are also likely to generate much less bang for the buck. Most empirical studies suggest that lower personal tax rates increase labor supply largely by boosting female labor participation.1 The prime-age female labor participation rate in the U.S. today is 11 points higher than it was in 1980, which limits the scope for further gains. Moreover, when Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the top personal tax rate stood at 70% (Chart 9). At such a high rate, a one percentage-point cut in the top rate increases take-home pay by 3.3% (1/30). Today, the top rate stands at 39.6%, so a one-point cut would raise after-tax income by only 1.6% (1/60.4). Thus, the incentive effect from cutting the top marginal tax rate is only half of what it was back then. And, of course, the lower the tax rate, the less incremental revenue the government gets from every additional dollar of income. A reasonable estimate is that the revenue offset from tax cuts today would be only one-quarter of whatever modest amount it was in the early 1980s. Chart 8Growing Share Of U.S. Equities##br## Is Held By Foreigners Growing Share Of U.S. Equities Is Held By Foreigners Growing Share Of U.S. Equities Is Held By Foreigners Chart 9Lower Bang For The Buck From##br## Cutting Individual Tax Rates Lower Bang For The Buck From Cutting Individual Tax Rates Lower Bang For The Buck From Cutting Individual Tax Rates Tax Cuts Versus Tax Reform This is not to say that tax reform is undesirable. Statutory corporate tax rates in the U.S. are quite high, but effective rates are very low, given the myriad deductions and tax-sheltering strategies (Chart 10). The combination of base-broadening and lower statutory rates would make the economy more efficient. In this respect, the set of reforms unveiled by Paul Ryan earlier this year actually had a lot going for it. Unfortunately, the half-measures in both the House and Senate bills run the risk of making the current system even worse. For example, the proposed transition from the current system where U.S. companies are taxed on their worldwide profits to one where they are taxed only on the profits they earn in the U.S. is likely to increase the incentive to use accounting gimmicks to shift more taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions abroad.2 The new "pass through" tax rate of 25% would also provide passive business owners, who are currently subject to the top marginal tax rate, with a massive tax break. Chart 10Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap In theory, full business investment expensing is a good idea, but the economic impact is likely to be modest. Companies pay less tax upfront when they can write off the value of capital expenditures immediately, but incur higher taxes in the future due to the absence of any further depreciation expenses. When interest rates are low, as they are today, the present value gain from shifting tax liabilities around in this way is bound to be small. This, along with the fact that companies can already write off a large share of capital purchases under current law in the first few years after they are made, will limit the benefits of the proposal. The full expensing of capital purchases also expires after five years under the Republican plan. This could cause companies to pull forward capital spending simply to game the tax code. Such a policy could be justified if the economy were depressed, but that is not the case today. The Tax Foundation, a free-market think tank that a number of left-leaning economists have accused of overstating the benefits of tax cuts, estimates that temporary expensing would raise the level of real GDP by only 0.18% after a decade, compared to 1.6% in the case of permanent expensing.3 From Populism To Pluto-Populism Chart 11This Is Not Populism Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Martin Wolf has aptly referred to Donald Trump as a "pluto-populist" - someone who talks like a champion of the poor and middle class to his adoring supporters, but actually pushes for policies that mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans.4 Many of the proposals in the Republican tax bills - including the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the phase-out of the estate tax, and the aforementioned reduction in the business pass-through tax - would further skew the distribution of income towards the rich (Chart 11). Indeed, the benefits for the wealthy grow over time under the proposed plans, even as those for the middle class dissipate, eventually reaching the point where the average middle-class household ends up paying more taxes under the House plan than they do now (Chart 12).5 And no, one cannot say that this outcome is simply the inevitable consequence of the fact that the rich pay most of the taxes. Once regressive taxes such as the payroll tax and state and local taxes are included in the tally, the rich pay about the same share of their income in taxes as the middle class (Chart 13). To make matters worse, the Republican tax bill would trigger $25 billion in Medicare cuts and $111 billion in cuts to other government programs under current PAYGO rules. More pain for middle-class voters. Donald Trump was quick to throw Ed Gillespie under the bus after he failed to win the governor's race in Virginia, tweeting that Gillespie "did not embrace me or what I stand for." But the truth is Trump has not embraced Trumpism either. We were widely scorned in the early days of the primary season for saying that Trump would secure the Republican nomination, and mocked again in 2016 for predicting that he would win the presidential election. At this point, however, the odds are high that the Republicans will lose the House next November and Trump will fail to get re-elected in 2020. Chart 12Middle-Class Tax Cuts Will Morph Into Tax Hikes Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Chart 13U.S. Taxation Not Very Progressive Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Investment Conclusions U.S. equities are overbought and ripe for a correction. As is almost always the case, lower stock prices in the U.S. will negatively impact global bourses. Fortunately, the selloff is likely to be short-lived, with strong global growth and rising earnings powering stocks into 2018. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. Nevertheless, we expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a wider budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Chart 14Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Fiscal Follies Fiscal Follies Higher government debt levels will also increase the temptation to inflate away debt. As we discussed a few weeks ago, rising political polarization is affecting every facet of society, with the NFL just being the latest example.6 It is hard to believe that the Fed will remain above the fray. History suggests that the loss of central bank independence is often associated with higher inflation (Chart 14). Such may be America's fate as well. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Robert K. Triest, "The Effect Of Income Taxation On Labor Supply In The United States," The Journal of Human Resources, Special Issue on Taxation and Labor Supply in Industrial Countries, 25:3 (Summer 1990); and Costas Meghir and David Phillips, "Labour Supply And Taxes," IZA Discussion Paper No. 3405 (March 2008). 2 Both the House and Senate versions of the tax bill have a number of provisions to limit the ability of corporations to shift profits abroad, but at present, it is unclear how effective these measures will be. 3 Please see "Economic and Budgetary Impact of Temporary Expensing," Tax Foundation, dated October 4, 2017. 4 Martin Wolf, "Donald Trump Embodies How Great Republics Meet Their End," Financial Times, March 1, 2016. 5 This mainly occurs because the "Family Flexibility Credit" expires after 2022. The expanded Child Tax Credit is also not indexed to inflation under the House plan, implying that its value to tax filers will go down over time. In addition, the repeal of the individual mandate would cause fewer lower-income earners to buy health insurance, leading them to forego the tax subsidies that they would otherwise receive. 6 Please see , "Three Demographic Megatrends," dated October 27, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Stay short the rand. The South African currency has broken down, and further downside is looming. The rand is cheap for a reason. A lack of import substitution has hampered the benefits of a depreciated currency for the economy. The trade balance will deteriorate as metals prices drop due to growth deceleration in China. Lingering political uncertainty, a poor structural backdrop and reliance on foreign portfolio flows that are at risk of reversal all argue for material downside in the rand's value from current levels. Dedicated EM equity and bond portfolios should continue to underweight South Africa. Feature The South African rand posted an impressive rally in 2016 and early 2017, despite the economy's technical recession (Chart I-1). Yet recently, the rand has started breaking down, despite domestic demand data showing modest improvement. We have argued in the past that lower commodities prices and rising U.S. interest rates along with a negative political backdrop and a weak economy would put downward pressure on the rand. However, domestic demand has recently ticked up, and according to our broad money (M3) impulse, domestic demand will likely continue to improve modestly in the next several months (Chart I-2) - barring the intensifying political headwinds hurting business and consumer sentiment. The M3 impulse is the second derivative of outstanding broad money M3. Chart I-1South Africa: ##br##Economy And Currency South Africa: Economy And Currency South Africa: Economy And Currency Chart I-2South Africa: Modest ##br##Upside In Domestic Demand South Africa: Modest Upside In Domestic Demand South Africa: Modest Upside In Domestic Demand Therefore, today we are posing the following question: Can South African risk assets sell off even as domestic demand continues to recover moderately? Our answer is yes. The basis is that the balance of payments (BoP) is set to deteriorate again. What Drives The Rand? The narrative that a high carry will support high-yielding EM currencies including the rand is misplaced. Chart I-3 illustrates that there has been no positive correlation between the rand's exchange rate and its short-term interest rate differential with those in the U.S. Notably, neither the level nor direction of interest rate differential correlates positively with the value of the rand. If anything, it is the exchange rate that drives interest rates in South Africa and in many high-yielding EM markets, not the other way around. The bottom panel of Chart I-3 demonstrates that the rand's appreciation typically leads to lower interest rates, and vice versa. While in the near term the rand could be under pressure from rising U.S. interest rate expectations and a U.S. dollar rebound, the currency's medium-term outlook will continue be shaped by commodities prices. Chart I-4 demonstrates that the rand's exchange rate is strongly correlated with industrial and precious metals prices. Chart I-3Rand Drives Interest ##br##Rates Not Other Way Around Rand Drives Interest Rates Not Other Way Around Rand Drives Interest Rates Not Other Way Around Chart I-4Rand Is Correlated ##br##With Metal Prices Rand Is Correlated With Metal Prices Rand Is Correlated With Metal Prices The fundamental basis for rand depreciation going forward is a worsening BoP: Industrial metals prices will drop as China's growth slows (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, a moderate pick-up in domestic demand will lead to rising imports and a deteriorating trade balance (Chart I-2, bottom panel on page 2). Precious metals prices will also be under pressure in the near term as U.S. interest rate expectations rise, supporting the U.S. dollar. In fact, the most reliable factor driving gold prices has historically been U.S. real (TIPS) yields (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China's Money/Credit Impulses ##br##Are Bearish For Industrial Metals bca.ems_sr_2017_11_15_s1_c5 bca.ems_sr_2017_11_15_s1_c5 Chart I-6Gold Is Driven By U.S. ##br##Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Gold Is Driven By U.S. Real Rates (TIPS Yields) Gold Is Driven By U.S. Real Rates (TIPS Yields) We expect the rand to depreciate considerably and make new lows against the euro and European currencies. This will contrast with what occurred in 2014-'15, when the rand's depreciation versus the euro and European currencies was much less pronounced than versus the dollar. Chart I-7Foreigners Are Record ##br##Long South African Bonds Foreigners Are Record Long South African Bonds Foreigners Are Record Long South African Bonds As the rand falls versus the majority of DM currencies, foreign investors will be prompted to reduce their holdings of South African local currency bonds and equities. Given foreigners own 42% of the country's local government bonds (Chart I-7, top panel), the bond market will sell off further, and outflows could be meaningful. Another angle to consider is whether a revival in domestic demand would be enough to offset the above negatives and attract enough foreign capital to finance the BoP. In our opinion, not this time around. First, any domestic demand recovery in South Africa will be muted. Given lingering political uncertainty, upside in business spending and job creation will remain subdued. Notably, risks are skewed to the downside for domestic demand due to lingering political uncertainty. Second, in 2016 the rand rallied considerably, even as domestic demand was falling. During 2016 and early 2017, the rand was supported by external forces such as rising metals prices and capital flows to EM. In turn, weakening domestic demand induced an imports contraction, helping the trade balance. Presently, all of these factors are reversing. Finally, portfolio flows have been much more important than FDIs for South Africa in recent years (Chart I-8). This implies that as portfolio flows dry up, FDIs will not finance the BoP. Bottom Line: South Africa's BoP dynamics are set to deteriorate markedly, leading to a major currency downleg. Is The Rand Cheap? A Look At Import Substitution Our valuation measures show that the rand is one standard deviation cheap (Chart I-9). Chart I-8South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows Chart I-9The Rand's Valuation Profile The Rand's Valuation Profile The Rand's Valuation Profile However, we believe it is "cheap for a reason." Structural forces have been and remain currency bearish. Chart I-10No Import Substitution In South Africa No Import Substitution In South Africa No Import Substitution In South Africa A cheap currency leads to import substitution - i.e., domestic producers become more competitive than foreign ones, and they replace imports with locally produced goods. This in turn improves the trade balance and boosts domestic jobs and income. Stronger output growth and higher return on capital allow the economy to withstand higher interest rates. Rising return on capital and interest rates attract foreign capital (both portfolio inflows and FDI), leading to currency appreciation. In South Africa, the inherent problem is that despite substantial weakness in the currency since 2011, there has been very little import substitution. This is true across the most basic types of goods that do not require sophisticated production methods such as footwear, plastic, rubber products and textiles (Chart I-10). Astonishingly, this has continued to hold true even after the collapse of the rand in 2015 to two-standard-deviations below its fair value. Given import substitution has not materialized, economic growth has not benefited much from a depreciated currency, and all the usual drivers that typically mark a bottom in the exchange rate and jump-start sustainable currency appreciation are thus still lacking. Hence, the rand will have to stay cheap. Interestingly, in the absence of a shift from foreign to locally produced goods, a recovery in domestic demand will boost imports, benefiting foreign producers relative to local ones - i.e., "leaking" growth to the rest of the world. Bottom Line: An ongoing lack of import substitution in South Africa has been due to lingering structural malaise. Therefore, the rand will have to stay structurally cheap. Productivity Demise It is not surprising that import substitution has been non-existent, given the demise of productivity within the South African economy. When assessing competitiveness, it is essential to analyze a country's unit labor costs in U.S. dollar terms. South African unit labor costs in U.S. dollar terms have risen by 50% in the manufacturing sector, and by 160% in the overall economy since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: ##br##South Africa & U.S. Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: South Africa & U.S. Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: South Africa & U.S. For comparison, in the U.S., overall non-farm unit labor costs in U.S. dollars have risen by 20% since 2000, and have been more or less flat in the manufacturing sector. In brief, in the past 17 years, unit labor costs in U.S. dollar in South Africa have risen substantially more than in the U.S. There are also other ramifications of lingering productivity malaise: First, in South Africa, fiscal and monetary stimuli typically widen the current account deficit more than in countries where manufacturing is able to compete with global manufacturers. Second, inflation dynamics in South Africa are even more sensitive to exchange rate movements. A large share of imports for domestic consumption ensures that South African inflation remains correlated with the exchange rate rather than with the domestic business cycle. Third, for monetary policy, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has been forced to pursue more pro-cyclical monetary policy - raising rates when metals prices drop and the rand depreciates. Higher interest rates amid a negative terms-of-trade shock - i.e. falling metals prices - has historically reinforced boom-bust cycles in the South African economy and created less visibility for domestic investments, further hindering long-term growth. That said, there are presently low odds that the SARB will hike rates materially, even if the rand drops substantially. The monetary authorities did not significantly cut rates amid the rand's rally in 2016-'17. Hence, odds of rate hikes are low, which heralds yield curve steepening. Bottom Line: Poor productivity has been and remains a major constraint on South African growth and a major drag on the currency. An Update On Politics The December African National Congress (ANC) presidential election is around the corner, and it is worth asking if any positive outcome for the economy and markets may emerge. We do not expect so. At this point, there are two scenarios to consider. The first is that current Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa wins. Given his recent strong performance in key swing provinces and lack of competition from Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Ramaphosa has decent chances of winning the ANC presidency. However, as our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy service argued, the structural reality is that the median voter in South Africa is not in a position to support a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms.1 In a system where policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace and not price makers, even if Ramaphosa wins, he is unlikely to address the majority of South Africa's lingering structural issues in a meaningful way. Furthermore, the rising popularity of the left-wing radical Economic Free Fighters, led by ex-Youth League Leader Julius Malema, will also be a constraint on Ramaphosa in terms of enacting supply side reforms. The second scenario is that Ramaphosa does not win, in which case he and his supporters could split from the ANC and perhaps form a new party with the Democratic Alliance (DA). It is hard to tell at the moment what this scenario would entail for the general elections in 2019. Historically, given the ANC's stronghold on the country's politics, the winner of the ANC Congress has moved on to become President of South Africa. However in the event of an ANC split, some revaluation of the political landscape would be required. Regardless of who wins the elections in 2019, a general lack of appetite for structural and painful reforms point to fiscal policy remaining lax - and being used to boost growth (Chart I-12). At 51% of GDP, the public debt burden is not yet at alarming levels. In the meantime, easy or easing fiscal stance will continue to put downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: Odds of structural reforms are low, regardless of who wins the December elections. Fiscal policy will remain easy, and public debt will continue to rise. This is a bad omen for the currency. Investment Recommendations We continue to recommend the following strategy: Continue shorting the ZAR versus the USD. The rand has broken down from a key resistance level, and has much more downside (Chart I-13). Chart I-12South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide Chart I-13The Rand: A Breakdown The Rand: A Breakdown The Rand: A Breakdown Underweight South African domestic bonds and sovereign credit relative to their EM benchmarks. Sovereign spreads have hit a strong technical resistance and are starting to bounce off (Chart I-14). Continue betting on yield-curve steepening. A lack of economic vigor will keep the SARB on hold for now, yet the country's populist fiscal stance and withdrawals by foreigners from the bond market will push up long-dated bond yields. For EM local fixed-income portfolios, we maintain the following trade: short South African and Turkish 5-year bonds / long Polish and Hungarian ones. Lastly, a few words on the stock market: Our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio for the MSCI South Africa equity index suggests that this bourse is one standard deviation expensive (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-14South Africa: Sovereign Spreads ##br##To Move Above EM Benchmark South Africa: Sovereign Spreads To Move Above EM Benchmark South Africa: Sovereign Spreads To Move Above EM Benchmark Chart I-15South African Equites: ##br##Valuation & Technicals South African Equites: Valuation & Technicals South African Equites: Valuation & Technicals Interestingly, the relative performance of this bourse versus the EM benchmark might be on a precipice of a major breakdown (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Continue underweighting South African stocks. Chart I-16Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens As to sectors, we recommend an overweight position in banks and materials. A steepening yield curve typically benefits bank stocks (Chart I-16), while materials will in turn benefit from a depreciating currency. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, link available at gps.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Question 1: Why is U.S. inflation still so low? Question 2: How important is the upcoming change in Fed leadership? Question 3: What are the implications of the U.S. tax cuts? Question 4: What is the outlook for the ECB next year, and how will this impact the U.S. dollar versus the euro? Question 5: Are markets underestimating the potential impact from slower growth of central bank balance sheets? Question 6: How much longer can this powerful rally in Emerging Markets continue? Question 7: What are other investors worried about? Feature I have just returned from an extended two-week trip visiting clients in the Asia-Pacific region. The meetings were all very well attended, with even many non-dedicated fixed income investors turning up to ask tough questions about global bond markets. My impression was that given the powerful returns earned in virtually all risk assets this year (equities, credit, Emerging Markets), our clients are growing more concerned about the potential risks from tighter global monetary policy and rising interest rates than they have been for some time. Oddly enough, this is despite not fearing either a serious rise in inflation or a major growth slowdown next year. If such a thing as "nervous complacency" can exist, it seemed widely evident in most of my meetings. This week, I am taking a more personal tone than in a typical Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report to summarize the key client questions from ten days of meetings, spread across six cities in five countries on two continents. Why is U.S. inflation still so low? Chart 1Tightest Global Labor Market##BR##Since The Mid-2000s Tightest Global Labor Market Since The Mid-2000s Tightest Global Labor Market Since The Mid-2000s Almost all of the meetings began with a discussion of the current situation in the U.S., particularly the lack of inflation. The current BCA view that U.S. inflation will accelerate in 2018 was met with some skepticism, particularly when framed in the context of the uncertain unemployment/inflation trade-off. In one meeting, outright laughter actually broke out when the term "Phillips Curve" was mentioned! Clearly, the burden of proof is on the inflation data itself. On that note, I presented several of the best BCA charts from recent months that show how the backdrop is ripe for a turnaround in global inflation. Clients were impressed when shown that nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD had unemployment rates below the full-employment NAIRU, a level not seen since the period of strong coordinated global growth and rising inflation in the mid-2000s (Chart 1). Yet when I then presented a chart showing the actual inflation/unemployment data in the U.S. over the past 20 years, with a clear "kinked" Phillips Curve and the latest data point well on the steeper portion of that curve (Chart 2), the majority of clients were less convinced. The most cited reason was that the U.S. inflation data simply did not accelerate in 2017 when it was supposed to given the steady fall in unemployment over the preceding few years. Perhaps most surprising was that, rather than believe that the NAIRU rate may simply be lower now than in past business cycles, so many people that I met were willing to discard the entire Phillips Curve concept as a useful framework to forecast inflation. When presented with charts showing non-Phillips Curve reasons to expect higher inflation, however, there was far less skepticism. Perhaps the most compelling chart showed the typical 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and the "momentum" of U.S. inflation (Chart 3). Upon seeing this, clients were more convinced that inflation would pick up next year in response to the current U.S. growth upturn. Chart 2U.S. Economy Has Moved Into##BR##The "Steep" Part Of The Phillips Curve The Most Important Client Questions From A Long Road Trip The Most Important Client Questions From A Long Road Trip Chart 3Inflation Typically Follows Economic Growth With A Long Lag Inflation Typically Follows Economic Growth With A Long Lag Inflation Typically Follows Economic Growth With A Long Lag I was also able to break down some of the skepticism on the U.S. inflation outlook even more after discussing the bullish oil forecast from our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. Admittedly, their view that the benchmark Brent oil price will average $65/bbl in 2018 sounds far less dramatic given that the current spot price has risen to nearly that level in the aftermath of the recent political turmoil in Saudi Arabia. Yet clients did appreciate that our bullish oil call was driven more by a view of improving global oil demand and continued production discipline by oil producers (especially for the so-called "OPEC 2.0" nations of Russia and Saudi Arabia). When shown our chart describing how oil prices persistently in the mid-$60s next would put some upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of global bond yields (Chart 4), there was virtually no disagreement from any clients that I met. There was a bit more pushback on the view that, if the BCA forecast of higher U.S. inflation and rising oil prices in 2018 comes to fruition, there is room for a substantial rise in U.S. Treasury yields from current levels. When presented a chart showing that market-based inflation expectations (both using TIPS breakevens and CPI swaps) could rise by 50-60bps just to get back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 5), most clients politely nodded and basically said "show me the actual inflation first." Although there was widespread agreement with our view that it would take that kind of move in inflation expectations to prompt the Fed to fully deliver on the 100bps of rate hikes it is currently projecting to occur over the next year. Chart 4A Boost To Inflation Expectations##BR##From Higher Oil In 2018 A Boost To Inflation Expectations From Higher Oil In 2018 A Boost To Inflation Expectations From Higher Oil In 2018 Chart 5The Normalization Of U.S. Inflation##BR##Expectations Will Continue The Normalization Of U.S. Inflation Expectations Will Continue The Normalization Of U.S. Inflation Expectations Will Continue How important is the upcoming change in Fed leadership? The vast majority of clients that I met asked about the BCA view on the nomination of Jerome Powell as the new Fed Chair, replacing Janet Yellen. My impression was that there was not a lot of concern over the potential for serious alterations to the future path of U.S. monetary policy under new leadership. Yet it was still potentially a big enough change to ask questions about it. Most clients agreed with the BCA view that a Fed Chair Powell will not act much differently than Yellen. His voting history has aligned with hers and, by his own admission, he is a very data dependent central banker given that he is not a formally-trained economist. Only by knowing the ins and outs of the data has he been able to debate successfully with the Ph.D economists on the FOMC. Powell will likely be a data-driven Fed Chair that would not look to hike rates without higher inflation (and vice versa). Chart 6A Communications Problem##BR##For Jerome Powell? A Communications Problem For Jerome Powell? A Communications Problem For Jerome Powell? One point that I raised in all the meetings was that the Fed's communication strategy on future rate increases is the more worrisome issue for financial markets at the moment. The U.S. money market curve is still priced for only 50bps of rate increases over the next year, while the Fed "dots" are signaling 100bps of hikes. We think the Fed will deliver on its projections, which is one of the reasons we are recommending a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. (the upside in inflation expectations is the other reason). More importantly, the Fed's so-called "terminal rate" projection is at 2.75%, while our proxy for the market pricing of that rate - the 5-year U.S. Overnight Index Swap rate, 5-years forward - is hovering just above 2% (Chart 6). The persistent disagreement between the market and the Fed over the appropriate level of the terminal rate will become a problem later in 2018 if the Fed does indeed raise the funds rate to over 2% and continues to signal that more rate hikes will come to get the funds rate up to "neutral" (the terminal rate). If the Fed is not able to change the market's mind about the appropriate neutral level of the funds rate, then a move to the Fed's estimated terminal rate of 2.75% would push U.S. monetary policy into what will would be perceived a restrictive stance. This would have implications for the shape of the U.S. Treasury curve (a lot flatter) and for future growth expectations (a lot slower) heading into 2019. My impression from my meetings was that this possibility - that the Fed could engineer what would look to the markets like a policy mistake simply by sticking to its forecasts - was not at the forefront of clients' thinking at the moment. Yet there was no disagreement with the logic of how that could play out. The new Fed leadership under Jerome Powell may have its hands full clearly explaining their policy decisions in 2018, which could create some turbulence in global financial markets later in the year. What are the implications of the U.S. tax cuts? The details of the tax plans from the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate were a very hot topic in all of my client meetings. Considering all the ideas being proposed, from cuts in corporate tax rates to changes in the tax treatment of debt interest costs to removing the disincentive to repatriate profits earned abroad, it is no surprise that both equity and fixed income clients had a lot of questions on future U.S. tax policy. It is difficult right now to judge the net impact of the tax changes, as not all of the proposals in the two Congressional tax plans will likely be implemented. There will be plenty of horse trading between the Republicans and Democrats (and between the Republicans themselves) before the final tax deal is done. Yet there was a lot of concern among clients in my meetings over the likelihood that the tax cuts will be implemented at all. After seeing President Trump lose the battle on health care reform earlier this year, many clients were worried that a repeat could happen for the Trump tax cut agenda. This would have negative implications for U.S. equity markets, the U.S. dollar and future Fed policy moves. I explained the views from our colleagues at Geopolitical Strategy, who strongly believe that a tax cut will eventually pass (likely in early 2018) given the need for Congressional Republicans to have something positive to present to voters heading into the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. The tax cuts will have a moderate stimulative effect on the U.S. economy that the markets were not yet fully discounting. I also presented the chart from Global Fixed Income Strategy showing that wider U.S. budget deficits usually coincide with a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, almost always because the U.S. economy is slowing down, prompting looser fiscal policy and also Fed rate cuts (Chart 7). This time is different, however, since the Trump tax cuts will be stimulating an economy currently at full employment (middle panel). This has the potential to trigger more inflation through faster economic growth and even tighter labor markets which could prompt the Fed to move more aggressively on interest rate increases next year and eventually flatten the UST curve (bottom panel). Chart 7A Full-Employment Fiscal Stimulus Will Bear-Steepen The UST Curve A Full-Employment Fiscal Stimulus Will Bear-Steepen The UST Curve A Full-Employment Fiscal Stimulus Will Bear-Steepen The UST Curve The idea of a "steeper, then flatter" Treasury yield curve in response to U.S. fiscal policy stimulus generated a lot of discussion in my meetings. Some even noted that the recent flattening of the curve was a sign that the markets were discounting a lower probability of a tax deal being reached in D.C. I described the flat curve as a consequence of inflation expectations remaining too low, as the Treasury curve was much flatter than implied by the low level of the real fed funds rate, which is one of the most reliable relationships in the bond markets (higher real rates = a flatter curve, and vice versa). My conclusion from these meetings (and from the current market pricing) is that clients are a bit skeptical that a tax deal will be reached. This suggests there is room for bond yields to rise, and the Treasury curve to bear-steepen, if our political strategists are right and the tax cuts will happen. What is the outlook for the ECB next year, and how will this impact the U.S. dollar versus the euro? While most of the questions in my meetings focused on the U.S. outlook, several clients asked about the next move from the European Central Bank (ECB). This was both from a fixed income perspective and, perhaps even more importantly, with an eye on the future direction of the euro versus the U.S. dollar. I made the straightforward argument that with Euro Area economic growth showing strong momentum that is unlikely to slow much in 2018, and with headline Euro Area inflation likely to surprise to the upside based on our bullish oil call (Chart 8), the ECB would likely be forced to signal a tapering of its asset purchase program to zero by the end of next year. The oil view was especially important, as the ECB is expecting a slowing of headline Euro Area inflation to 1% in early 2018 based on the base effects from comparisons to the rise in oil prices seen in early 2017. If our house view on oil prices plays out, then there is potential for inflation to catch the ECB by surprise in 2018. The key will be how core inflation plays out as oil prices rise further. Core Euro Area inflation has dipped lower in recent months, even as wage growth has accelerated (bottom panel). Given tightening Euro Area labor markets, and robust domestic demand, the recent dip in core inflation is likely to bottom out sometime in the first few months of 2018. But until that happens, there is more potential for higher U.S. bond yields through faster increases in inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes (Chart 9). This will support a higher U.S. dollar versus the euro through wider interest rate differentials (bottom panel). Chart 8ECB Will Fully Taper##BR##By The End Of 2018 ECB Will Fully Taper By The End Of 2018 ECB Will Fully Taper By The End Of 2018 Chart 9UST-Bund Spread Will Widen Next Year,##BR##Supporting The USD UST-Bund Spread Will Widen Next Year, Supporting The USD UST-Bund Spread Will Widen Next Year, Supporting The USD Clients were generally in agreement with that view on relative interest rates, but the views on the direction of EUR/USD were far more mixed. My impression is that if the Fed delivers the rate hikes that we expect in 2018, EUR/USD has room to move lower as investors were not prepared for this. Are markets underestimating the potential impact from slower growth of central bank balance sheets? I received many questions on the potential impact of central banks either shrinking balance sheets (the Fed) or slowing their expansion (the ECB and Bank of Japan). The chart showing how the growth in central bank money printing since 2015 (when the ECB began buying bonds) has correlated strongly with the bull markets in virtually all global risk assets garnered a lot of attention (Chart 10). This was especially true when I showed the chart that converted the level of the major central bank balance sheets to a growth rate and plotted that versus the returns on global equities and credit markets (Chart 11). The implication - expect lower returns on global equity markets, and MUCH lower returns from corporate bond markets next year. Chart 10CB Liquidity Has Supported Risk Assets... CB Liquidity Has Supported Risk Assets... CB Liquidity Has Supported Risk Assets... Chart 11...But That Tailwind Will Fade Next Year ...But That Tailwind Will Fade Next Year ...But That Tailwind Will Fade Next Year On this point, there was almost no disagreement from clients. There is widespread awareness that this era of puny interest rates, spurred on by central banks buying up huge quantities of government bonds and other financial assets, was forcing investors to take on far more risk in their portfolios to achieve acceptable returns. The key is when this will all turn around. Clients were generally in agreement with my view that the final leg of this liquidity-driven global bull market in risk assets will best be played through equity markets over corporate credit. These stable, earnings-driven rallies seen in global equity markets have not yet reached a "blowoff" phase that would suggest a larger correction is imminent. Perhaps it will take a final asset allocation decision to move more money out of bonds into equities to trigger that final run-up in equity prices before tighter monetary policies and slower growth expectations begin to damage returns later in 2018 into 2019. How much longer can this powerful rally in Emerging Markets continue? This is a topic that generated a healthy amount of debate in my meetings, particularly given the bearish views on Emerging Market (EM) assets from my colleagues at Emerging Markets Strategy. Here again, clients were generally looking at EM as a way to achieve acceptable returns in their portfolios while also participating in the global economic upturn through growth-sensitive assets. The previous chart showing the impact of diminished central bank liquidity on EM credit markets got some clients a bit nervous about the outlook for EM markets. What also spooked them were the charts from our EM strategists showing accelerating Chinese inflation (Chart 12) and slowing Chinese money growth. There is obviously a connection between the two, as China's policymakers are being forced to tighten monetary policy, and clamp down on excess credit creation, in response to accelerating inflation and very high debt levels. The chart showing how our "China M3 Impulse" had turned negative this year and was pointing to slower growth in industrial metals prices and China capital goods imports (Chart 13) was particularly unnerving for even the most bullish of EM clients. Chart 12This Is Why China Is Tightening Monetary Policy This Is Why China Is Tightening Monetary Policy This Is Why China Is Tightening Monetary Policy Chart 13Prepare For Slower Chinese Growth In 2018 bca.gfis_wr_2017_11_14_c13 bca.gfis_wr_2017_11_14_c13 My impression is that the clients I met were fully loaded up on EM assets but were comfortable holding those positions based on expectations of solid Chinese economic growth and continued inflows into EM assets from yield-starved global investors. If BCA's view that Chinese growth will slow next year comes to fruition, combined with rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar as the Fed tightens more than currently discounted by the markets, then there is potential for outflows from EM markets to accelerate, to the detriment of EM returns. What are other investors worried about? This is a question that comes up a lot at BCA meetings, as clients are always curious as to what we are hearing from other investors. Perhaps this can be chalked up to a version of "confirmation bias", where investors like to hear that their own views are shared by others in the markets. In my meetings over the past two weeks, however, I got the sense that clients are heavily exposed to risk assets, which have performed beyond their expectations, and are growing more worried about how things can go wrong. Like an end to the current low volatility regime, for example. Given the BCA views on the likelihood of global inflation increasing next year, triggering a more hawkish response from policymakers, I noted that I did not believe that clients were prepared for that outcome. This suggests that the beginning of the end of the current low volatility regime, which is seen across all asset classes (Chart 14), will occur through a pickup in bond volatility. This will take place from a rise in inflation expectations first, and a rise in policy rate expectations later. My advice to clients was that if realized bond volatility picks up, this is the signal to reduce exposure to credit and equity markets. We anticipate making such a recommendation sometime during 2018. Chart 14The Low Market Volatility Backdrop Will End When Bond Volatility Rises The Most Important Client Questions From A Long Road Trip The Most Important Client Questions From A Long Road Trip Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Most Important Client Questions From A Long Road Trip The Most Important Client Questions From A Long Road Trip Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The bill is bullish for growth and therefore for the equity markets and the U.S. dollar; The bill consists mostly of tax cuts, not reforms, that favor corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers; The bill is bullish for growth in the short term, but also inflationary and hence a risk to growth in the medium term; A non-populist White House is a relief to the markets, particularly on trade policy, but may mean a more hawkish foreign policy. Feature Chart 1Trump: A Boon For##BR##Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Since the November 2016 election, and particularly since President Donald Trump's inauguration, financial markets have celebrated. This is ironic given that on the campaign trail, Trump often adopted populist rhetoric indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, the bête noire of the business community. Trump's cabinet, however, quickly took on a pro-business outlook following the inauguration. Despite appointing several notable trade hawks, the administration sported half a dozen former Goldman Sachs employees. Business confidence soared, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries hanging over CEO's melted away (Chart 1). Both Wall Street and Main Street took one look at President Trump's cabinet at the end of January and decided that there was not an iota of genuine populism in the White House. This view was reinforced by three early decisions by the Trump administration: China: President Trump reneged on his promise to designate China a currency manipulator formally on day one of his administration.1 Instead, he hosted President Xi Jinping at the Mar-A-Lago Summit in April and agreed to engage in trade talks over the rest of the year. (He again declined to accuse China of currency manipulation in October.) Budget: President Trump's "skinny budget" proposal in May oozed with Republican Party orthodoxy, bolstering spending on defense and border security, while calling for drastic cuts to domestic programs. The implication was that future tax cuts would ultimately be "paid for" via draconian fiscal austerity in the distant future. "Breitbart clique" ousted: Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and self-described economic nationalist, was fired in mid-August, with several prominent allies ousted in the wake of his departure. Bannon's departure left Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Enter Tax Cuts The coup-de-grâce of Republican orthodoxy is the just-proposed tax cut plan. The proposal by the House Ways and Means Committee is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and the top-income brackets. As Table 1 clearly illustrates, the household component of the plan is nearly balanced - and therefore deserving of the moniker "reform" - whereas the corporate side of the ledger is closer to a pure and simple cut. Table 12017-2018 Republican Tax Cut Proposal - House Ways And Means Committee (Oct. 2017) Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Some of the more prominent measures proposed by the House and Ways Committee are: Household Income The highest tax rate remains 39.6%, but would now only kick in at $1 million in taxable income;2 The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be repealed, which hurts the upper middle class and wealthy by limiting tax benefits from a variety of deductions; The estate tax will be fully eliminated by 2024; The standard deduction will be doubled from $12,700 to $24,000, one of the few direct benefits to lower-income families; The plan would repeal the state and local income and sales tax deductions, while capping the state and local property tax deduction to $10,000; Almost all itemized deductions will be eliminated - such as medical expenses, property losses, casualty losses, etc.; The mortgage interest rate deduction for future home purchases will be capped, with only homes up to $500,000 covered. Corporate Income The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35% to 20%; Companies will be able to deduct the full amount of business investments in the year that they are made, although the provision would expire at the end of 2022; The tax rate on income from pass-through businesses would fall to 25%, considerably below the top household income tax rate; Several deductions would be eliminated, including the deduction of interest on debt; The "worldwide" tax system would be overhauled and foreign earnings repatriated: U.S. multinational corporations would pay a 12% tax rate on past profits that they repatriate, while future overseas earnings would be taxed at the new 20% corporate rate. We would caution clients from parsing too carefully through the proposal, lest they waste their time. The Senate is likely to pass a completely different set of proposals. The GOP plan is to get to a "conference committee" as fast as possible, where a new draft legislation can be hammered out from the two disparate proposals. We suspect that this entire process will miss the self-imposed target of "before Christmas," and probably last until the end of the first quarter.3 Nonetheless, we can discern the priorities of the House Republicans by gauging the winners and losers of their proposal. Our immediate take is that the tax cuts greatly benefit upper-income filers (households making over $423,000), moderately hurt upper-middle-class / lower-upper-class filers (those making between $260,000 and $423,000), and are largely neutral for the rest of households. First, the highest income groups are the clear beneficiaries: households making between roughly $450,000 and $1,000,000 will see their income tax rates fall by nearly 5%, by far the largest decrease planned. And, obviously, it is upper-income households that benefit from repealing the estate tax. Meanwhile, the upper middle class takes on the brunt of the burden of "reform": households making between $260,000 and $423,000 will see far fewer benefits under the proposed legislation. First, they are the only income bracket that will see a tax increase, from 33% to 35%. Second, they will not necessarily have the wherewithal to reclassify their income as pass-through business income. Third, many of the itemized deductions that will be eliminated will make a real difference in their filings. Fourth, they were the most likely to purchase homes between $500,000 and $1,000,000, which will no longer be eligible for interest-rate deduction. Fifth, the repeal of the estate tax will make less of a difference for this income group. Sixth, if they are domiciled in high-tax rate states and municipalities, these households will now be limited to how much they can deduct from federal taxes.4 Overall, the proposed tax cut plan fits general Republican orthodoxy.5 It tries to stimulate growth by favoring corporations and the wealthy. For economic growth, the plan is bullish in the short term. Particularly bullish is the ability of corporations to fully deduct the amount of business investment for the next five years. This provision could significantly increase investment in the short term, especially given the implicit threat that the opportunity will expire in 2022.6 Will the plan fail? It could, if enough Republican voters turn against it. The latest polling from Pew research - albeit from April of this year - shows that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 2). On the other hand, Republican and Republican-leaning voters do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 3), and the proposed plan simplifies taxes for some middle-income households by doubling the standard deduction and repealing the AMT. The White House has already begun stressing this feature given that it polls well with voters. Chart 2American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Chart 3...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Polling suggests that President Trump remains relatively popular with Republican voters despite his dismal polling with the general public (Chart 4). He is polling only slightly below the average of previous Republican presidents at this point in his term in office. As long as Trump remains more popular with Republican voters than his Republican peers in Congress, we think that he will be able to force the tax plan through both the Senate and the House. In fact, we could even see some Democrats in the Senate supporting these tax cuts. Table 2 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin) are especially vulnerable. That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, potentially enough "slack" for the Republicans in the Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Chart 4Trump Remains Popular With GOP Voters Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Table 22018 Senate Races To Watch Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Is it even worthwhile to contemplate a scenario in which Republicans pass the tax cuts with Democrat support in the Senate? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska) all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states. Bottom Line: The proposed tax cuts will benefit corporations and the upper-income Americans. The Senate may make some symbolic changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the median American - given that senators have to capture the median voter in their state to win reelection. For example, the estate tax repeal may be scrapped and rules on deducting state and local taxes may be modified. Regardless of how the horse-trading goes, we believe that the U.S. economy will receive a modest stimulus in the form of a roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut (over ten years). Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment and firing on all cylinders, the proposed tax cuts should be marginally bullish for growth and inflation (Chart 5). Chart 5Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped What Do The Tax Cuts Tell Us About President Trump? We are big believers in the theory of "revealed preferences." While this concept was formally applied by economist Paul Samuelson to consumer behavior, we like to apply it to policymakers. The idea is to ignore the rhetoric and focus on what patterns of behavior reveal about genuine preferences. Politicians talk a lot, particularly during an election campaign. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was a clear populist candidate. He only revealed his tax reform plan in late September 2015 and then rarely mentioned it on the campaign trail. While his tax cut proposal languished on the campaign website, Trump focused on rallying voters around a combination of populist promises. These were, in no particular order, to build the border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), to rebuild American infrastructure, to repeal Obamacare, to destroy the Islamic State terrorist movement while disengaging the U.S. from global affairs, and to punish the unfair practices of trade partners like China and Mexico. Fast forward 12 months and we are now half-way to the 2018 mid-term election, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, and yet the only electoral promise that President Trump is even close to achieving is the just-announced tax cut.7 The revealed preference of the Trump administration, at least at this point, is Republican orthodoxy. Trump is a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending, red-blooded Republican. He has eschewed trade conflict with China, ignored infrastructure proposals, largely toed-the-line of foreign policy orthodoxy, and left hedge fund managers - a punching bag on the campaign trail - alone.8 To put it bluntly, Trump's behavior thus far suggests that he is a pluto-populist. A pluto-populist is someone who rules on the behalf of a plutocracy - an oligarchy controlled by the wealthiest citizens - but whose main tactic is to rally the plebeians (the common people) through populist policies. The House's draft tax plan provides sweeping gains for the wealthiest. It also preserves or expands some benefits for the poorest groups, so as to make it politically achievable. The upper middle class - the professional class - stands to suffer the most under the new tax scheme. If this analysis is correct, what does it reveal about President Trump's strategy going forward? Anti-globalization rhetoric is just talk: The fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations ended with a bang: the U.S. delivered four new demands, two of which both Ottawa and Mexico City have identified as non-starters.9 However, in the pluto-populist scenario, even if NAFTA is ultimately abrogated, the Trump administration will ensure that the critical components are preserved in bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. While those agreements are negotiated, the Trump Administration will not raise tariffs to the maximum, "bounded," level as allowed by the WTO. Meanwhile, trade relations with China may still sour in 2018, but they will not produce a trade war. Social unrest could increase: As we argued in a recent Special Report, the American structural context is ripe for more social unrest due to "elite overproduction."10 Trump's policies are likely to feed this condition. Meanwhile, his rhetoric and symbolic gestures will fuel the flames of division in order to play to his base, and force Democrats to argue about how to respond. This would be the populist part of pluto-populism. Hawkish foreign policy: With most of his domestic policies stymied, President Trump will pivot to the foreign theatre. We would particularly watch the growing tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could soon involve Lebanon.11 President Trump has also decertified the Iran nuclear deal, setting the stage for Congress to decide whether it will impose new sanctions and thus abrogate the deal. Plus, there is always North Korea. Bottom Line: Essentially, President Trump's strategy will be to pass pro-business, pro-market economic policies while distracting his largely anti-business, anti-market voters through ancillary issues. Investment Implications On the one hand, this analysis implies a very bullish policy mix as the Trump administration will not do anything domestically that hurts the ongoing bull market. On the other hand, some of those "ancillary" issues could flare up and impact the market, particularly if they involve a ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and North Korea. Chart 6No Debate: There Is No##BR##Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts No Debate: There Is No Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts No Debate: There Is No Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts The one risk that we remain concerned about is protectionism. We expected Trump to be more disruptive this year, and the above analysis suggests that protectionism, too, is merely hot air. However, Trump has only been in office for ten months. The absence of trade tensions with China may be a function of ongoing negotiations with North Korea: the U.S. needs China's cooperation in order to force North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to the table. Ironically, then, a resolution of North Korean tensions could increase America's maneuvering vis-à-vis China, allowing Trump to become a lot more protectionist in 2018.12 Moreover, investors may be overemphasizing headline trade negotiations such as NAFTA or the China talks. The Trump administration may pursue protectionist aims through selective tariffs, such as countervailing and anti-dumping duties, in selective fashion. In other words, investors should pay attention to individual tariff decisions rather than overall negotiations.13 As for his electoral base, as long as President Trump can continue to ensure that they are focused on social disputes at home and hawkish rhetoric abroad, they may not notice the lack of movement on domestic promises. In particular, we have a high-conviction view that the just-proposed tax cuts will do nothing to curb income inequality in the U.S., and will likely deepen it, as previous such GOP-efforts did (Chart 6). Will this hurt President Trump in his 2020 reelection bid? We doubt it. But it does portend still greater socio-economic tensions and political populism in the long run. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The promise was made in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that then-candidate Trump penned on November 9, 2015. Please see Donald J. Trump, "Ending China's Currency Manipulation," dated November 9, 2015, available at wsj.com. 2 The top marginal tax rate of 39.6% is currently applied to single individuals making more than $418,401, a head of household making more than $444,501, and married couples, filing jointly, making more than $470,701. Technically, according to the current draft bill, the top tax rate in the House plan is supposedly about 45.6% between $1-$1.2 million, after which it falls back to 39.6%. A quirk in the proposal holds that once a filer hits $1 million of income, the IRS starts clawing back the $12,000 that the filer saved from having a 12% tax rate on his first $90,000 of income instead of a 25% tax rate. That clawback comes in the form of 6% surtax on income above $1 million. The $12,000 is completely reclaimed once the filer hits $1.2 million. By extension, everyone who makes over $1.2 million has had to pay that extra $12,000 in taxes. 3 For more on how the reconciliation process works, and how it will affect the timeline, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 From a political perspective, the GOP may have simply made a bet that high-tax-rate, blue-state households making $260,000-to-$430,000 do not vote Republican. 5 The congressional budget resolution that sets out the reconciliation instructions for these tax cuts also includes draconian spending cuts, which would presumably help balance the books. Although none of those cuts will pass Congress, they reveal the traditional preference of the Republican party: cut taxes, pay for the cuts by means of a smaller government delivering fewer services. 6 And perhaps this investment boost will come just in time to help re-elect Trump in 2020! 7 Although he deserves some credit for bringing to conclusion the pre-existing fight against the Islamic State. 8 In fact, the House tax bill leaves the "carried interest" tax break in the code. 9 For more on NAFTA, please see our upcoming Special Report with BCA's Global Investment Strategy, to be published on November 10. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Saad Harriri recently resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia, claiming that he feared for his life due to Iranian influence in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia itself is engaged in deep political struggle. 12 Indeed, in our original forecast of Trump's trade policy, we surmised that 2017 would largely be a year of negotiations, while 2018 would see the real fireworks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 An important such decision looms by January 12, 2018, which is the deadline by which President Trump must decide whether to impose "safeguard" tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.

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

Highlights Global "Low-flation" Vs. Oil Reflation: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018 Strong Growth Vs. Modest Inflation In Europe: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Feature The bull market in global risk assets continued last week, with the S&P 500 hitting yet another all-time record and other major bourses in both Developed Markets and Emerging Markets hitting multi-year highs. This is a sensible reflection of the strength and persistence of the current coordinated global economic upturn, which is boosting corporate profit growth worldwide. At the same time, the health of the current expansion has dampened risk-aversion among investors. This is helping to keep market volatility at depressed levels with only modest changes expected for both inflation and monetary policy. Yet there are storms brewing on the horizon that have the potential to shake up this low-volatility, risk-seeking backdrop. Specifically, a potentially less stable outlook for global inflation, amidst uncertainty over the direction of fiscal policy in the U.S. and monetary policy at the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB), could pose a threat to the current Goldilocks environment for risk assets (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we discuss some macroeconomic "trade-offs" that investors will have to grapple with over the next 6-12 months, and how to position bond portfolios accordingly. Chart of the WeekMarkets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Markets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Markets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Trade-Off #1: "Low-flation" Vs. Rising Oil Prices Chart 2Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Realized inflation data across the major developed economies is showing no imminent threat of breaching, or even just reaching, central bank targets. This is occurring despite a robust, coordinated global economic expansion that is generating some of the fastest growth rates seen since the Great Recession. With nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD now with unemployment rates below the estimates of the full employment NAIRU, subdued inflation readings remain a puzzle for both investors and policymakers (Chart 2). The term "low-flation" has been used to describe this backdrop of inflation rates remaining low seemingly regardless of what is happening with growth. Bond investors have reacted to this by keeping market-based inflation expectations at levels below central bank inflation targets, suggesting a potential problem with the credibility of policymakers. Yet a fresh challenge to the low-flation thesis will soon come from the global oil markets. Last week, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy upgraded their oil price targets for the fourth quarter of 2017 and all of 2018.1 Their estimates for global oil demand were revised upward based on the improving economic momentum, as evidenced by the IMF recently boosting its own forecasts for world GDP growth to 3.6% for all of 2017 and 3.7% for 2018. Combined with continued discipline on output from the so-called "OPEC 2.0" coalition of Russia & Saudi Arabia - currently responsible for 22% of the world's oil production - the global oil market is expected to see demand exceeding supply until late 2018 (Chart 3). The positive demand/supply balance should lead the Brent oil price benchmark to average just over $65/bbl in 2018 (Table 1), which would be a 13% increase from current levels. This is a move that global bond markets are likely to notice, given the strong correlation that still exists between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices in the developed economies. Chart 3A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil Table 1Upgrading The BCA Oil Price Forecasts How To Trade The Trade-Offs How To Trade The Trade-Offs In Charts 4 & 5, we show the market-based pricing on inflation expectations at the 10-year maturity for the U.S. (using TIPS breakevens), the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia (using CPI swaps). For each country, we also show the Brent oil price denominated in local currency terms. We add one additional data point to the charts, shown as an asterisk, incorporating the 2018 average Brent oil price expectation converted at current exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. As can be seen, the higher oil price that our commodity strategists are expecting should act to put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the major developed markets. Chart 4Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations ... Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations... Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations... Chart 5... From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 ...From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 ...From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 Of course, the unchanged currency assumption made in Charts 4 & 5 is unrealistic. Yet given the significant increase in oil prices that we are expecting next year (+13%), it is also unrealistic to expect enough currency appreciation in any country to fully offset the inflationary impact from oil. In fact, given the BCA view that the U.S. dollar should enjoy one last cyclical boost next year as the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is currently discounting, inflation expectations may actually rise by more than we are showing in our charts in non-U.S. countries (given that oil is priced in U.S. dollars). In Table 2, we show the forecast for the local-currency Brent oil price for 2018 and the date that oil prices were last at that level in each country (all in 2015 after the cyclical peak in oil prices that began in 2014). We also present the data on 10-year government bond yields, the 2-year/10-year slope of yield curves, market-based inflation expectations, and realized headline and core inflation rates for the major developed economies. We show the current levels for all those variables, plus the levels that prevailed the last time oil was at the levels we are forecasting. The major differences that stand out are: Table 2Bond Markets Now Vs. The Last Time Oil Prices Were In The Mid-$60s How To Trade The Trade-Offs How To Trade The Trade-Offs Yield levels are not dramatically different than where they were in 2015 in the U.S., Canada and Australia, but are lower now in the U.K., Euro Area and Japan thanks to central bank asset purchase programs. Yield curves are much flatter now in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan, but are steeper in the Euro Area and Australia. Market-based inflation expectations now are very close to the levels that prevailed in 2015, except in Japan where they are much lower. Headline inflation rates are much higher now everywhere except Australia, while core inflation rates are a lot higher in the U.K., a touch higher in the U.S. and Euro Area, and lower everywhere else. The conclusion from Table 2 is that there is potential for bond yields to rise as oil prices head higher in the U.S., U.K. and Euro Area given that inflation expectations are at the same levels as 2015 but realized inflation rates are higher. This would suggest that owning inflation protection in these countries is a sensible way to play the "low-flation vs. oil reflation" trade-off - trades that we already have in place in our Tactical Trade Overlay by being long Euro Area CPI swaps and owning U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries and (see table on page 16). We are reluctant to add U.K. inflation protection to this list, however, and may even look to go the other way given the likelihood that the currency-fueled surge in U.K. inflation is in the process of peaking out. In sum, bond markets will be unable to ignore a combination of strong global growth (still called for by rising global leading economic indicators), tightening labor markets and rising oil prices in 2018. As investors come to grips with oil trading with a 60-handle for the first time since 2015, inflation expectations should widen out in all developed market countries that are at, or beyond, full employment. This should put upward pressure on nominal bond yields as well, and potentially trigger bear-steepening of yield curves if central banks do not respond to higher oil-driven inflation with a faster tightening of monetary policy. Bottom Line: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Trade-Off #2: Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed President Trump's budget plan by the slimmest of margins (51 to 49), allowing for an increase in federal deficits of up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump immediately put pressure on the U.S. House of Representatives to also pass the Senate plan, and the initial comments from House Republican leadership was that they would also endorse the Senate budget proposal which included significant tax cuts for corporations and some households. This is unsurprising given that the Republicans need a major, economy-boosting legislative victory to present to voters in next year's U.S. Midterm elections. The U.S. Treasury market responded to this news on Friday in a fashion that we believe to be sensible - the curve bear-steepened, with the 2-year/30-year spread widening 4bps on the day. We have written about the interaction between budget deficits, Fed policy and the slope of the Treasury curve in past Weekly Reports this year, most recently at the beginning of this month.2 Chart 6 is taken from that most recent report, and we feel that it is important to go through our logic once again after last week's events. Chart 6UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later The Treasury curve typically steepens during periods when the U.S. federal budget deficit is widening (top panel). The Treasury curve is typically negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate, steepening when the real rate is falling and vice versa. Budget deficits usually are widening during periods of soft economic growth, when tax receipts are slowing and counter-cyclical fiscal spending is increasing. This is also typically correlated to periods when spare capacity in the U.S. economy is opening up and inflation pressures are diminishing (middle panel), hence giving the Fed cover to lower interest rates and putting steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. The current backdrop is atypical, as a fiscal stimulus is being proposed at a time when the economy is already at full employment with little sign of slowing. At the same time, the Fed is in a tightening cycle - albeit a slow one because of relatively subdued inflation - which usually does not occur during periods of widening budget deficits. This represents another difficult "trade-off" for investors to process. A so-called "full employment" fiscal stimulus should be inflationary at the margin, by definition, if it boosts economic growth to an above-potential pace. That would steepen the Treasury curve as longer-term inflation expectations rise, until the Fed steps in with rate hikes to offset the impact of the fiscal stimulus. If the Fed felt that the greater fiscal deficit was becoming a problem for medium-term inflation stability, then there could be a faster pace of rate hikes that would boost the real funds rate and put flattening pressure on the Treasury curve. A more straightforward way to describe that would be a scenario where the Trump tax cuts end up boosting U.S. real GDP growth to something close to 3% next year, which results in the U.S. unemployment rate falling to a "3-handle". This would likely put upward pressure on U.S. realized inflation and steepen the Treasury curve as the market prices in higher inflation - IF the Fed is slow to respond to that inflation pickup. When inflation rises by enough to threaten the Fed's 2% inflation target, perhaps even rising above that level, then the Fed would step in with more rate hikes. The result: a higher real fed funds rate and a flatter Treasury curve. That scenario is how we envision the next year playing out. Various FOMC members have already noted that they cannot account for any fiscal stimulus in their economic projections until they see the details. Furthermore, many members of the FOMC are expressing concern that the downdraft in inflation was enough of a surprise to raise questions about the Fed's understanding of the underlying inflation process. This suggests that the Fed will want to see inflation, both realized and expected, rise first before increasing the pace of rate hikes beyond current projections. Net-net, we see the Trump fiscal stimulus steepening the Treasury curve in 2018 before the Fed flattens it with tighter monetary policy. One caveat for the latter is the upcoming decision on the next Fed Chair. President Trump, ever the reality game show host, noted last week that the finalists for this season's episode for "The Apprentice: FOMC" are now down to Jerome Powell, John Taylor and current Chair Janet Yellen. Both Powell and, of course, Yellen would represent a continuation of the current cautious FOMC framework, while Taylor would likely be more hawkish given his public comments on Fed policy decisions (and the output of his own Taylor Rule!). If Taylor were to be appointed by Trump as the new Fed Chair, the Treasury curve may not steepen much on the back of fiscal easing if the markets begin to discount a more aggressive Fed. Bottom Line: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018. Trade-Off #3: Strong European Growth Vs. Mild Inflation The ECB meets later this week, and is expected to make a decision on the size and scope of its asset purchase program for next year and beyond. The latest Bloomberg survey of economists is calling for a cut in the monthly pace of asset purchases from €60bn/month to €30bn/month, but with an extension of the program until September 2018.3 The same survey calls for the ECB to deliver a hike in the deposit rate in Q1/2019, with a hike in the benchmark interest rate in Q2/2019. We agree with the former, although we think there will be no rate hikes of any kind until the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 7Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? The trade-off between robust European growth and still modest rates of core inflation are the reason we expect the ECB to be very late to begin hiking policy rates after the asset purchase program is completed. It is clear from a variety of data, from almost all countries in the Euro Area, that the economy is expanding at a robust, above-potential pace (Chart 7). Headline inflation has increased steadily off the 2015 lows and now sits at 1.5%, still below the ECB's target of "just below 2%". The ECB has played down this pickup in inflation, given that is has largely been driven by the rise in oil prices since the 2015 lows. There is certainly a strong correlation between the annual change of oil prices (denominated in euros) and Euro Area headline inflation (middle panel), and the ECB expects fading oil price momentum to result in Euro Area headline inflation drifting back to 1% in early 2018. Yet the oil price increase that our commodity strategists are calling for next year would boost the year-over-year growth rate to a pace around 40%, which has in the past been consistent with 2% headline inflation outcomes. A rising euro would help mitigate the impact from oil, but as mentioned earlier, we see more potential for some modest depreciation of the euro versus the U.S. dollar after the run-up seen in 2017. Despite the pickup in headline inflation already underway, core inflation in Europe remains benign at 1.1%. Our measure of the "breadth" of the rise in core inflation across 75 individual subsectors - the Euro Area core inflation diffusion index - sits right around the "50 line" suggesting that just as many components of Euro Area core inflation are rising as are falling. Yet with broad Euro Area unemployment approaching 8%, and with some measures of wage inflation starting to awake as a result, the odds are increasing that continued strong growth will result in additional upward momentum in core inflation. The ECB is already forecasting a return of core inflation to 1.9% in 2019, which is why some reduction in the pace of asset purchases will be announced this week. The entire asset purchase program was only put in place in 2015 to fight a deflation threat after oil prices collapsed in 2014, and that has now passed with inflation steadily grinding higher. So the "trade-off" for investors in Europe, between strong growth and moderate inflation, will be resolved by the ECB shifting to a less-accommodative monetary policy stance. In terms of the impact on Euro Area bond yields, however, the change in the pace of bond buying matters even more than the size of the asset purchases. In Chart 8, we show the ECB's monetary base and three scenarios for how it will evolve through asset purchases until the end of 2018: Base Case: The ECB slows the pace of bond buying to €30bn/month starting in January 2018 until September 2018, then cuts that down to €15bn/month for the remainder of 2018 and stops the program completely at year-end. Dovish Scenario: The pace of bond buying is maintained at €60bn/month until the end of 2018, with no commitment to end the program then. Hawkish Scenario: The ECB tapers its purchases by €10bn/month for the first six months of next year, then ends the program in July 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 8, we show the year-over-year growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet, with those three scenarios, and compare them to the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield and our estimate of the German term premium. In all three scenarios, even the dovish one where the ECB keeps on buying at the current pace, the growth rate of the monetary base will decelerate in 2018. As can be seen in the chart, that growth rate has been highly correlated to yields and the term premium during the life of the ECB's asset purchase program. The conclusion here is that central bank asset purchase programs need to increase in size versus previous years to maintain the same impact on bond yields over time. Put another way, asset purchases represent a signaling mechanism ("forward guidance") from a central bank to the markets about future changes in interest rates when they are already at the zero bound. Increasing the size of the purchases sends a more powerful message than simply keeping the pace of buying unchanged. This is especially true if the underlying economy is growing and inflation is rising, which would typically cause investors to price in a higher expected path of interest rates into the government bond yield curve. So, unless the ECB takes the highly unlikely step of increasing the size of its asset purchases for next year, then there are no outcomes from this week's ECB meeting that should be expected to be sustainably bullish for longer-dated European government bonds. At the same time, there will be no signals given on future changes in short-term interest rates, as the ECB has maintained for some time that rates will not be touched until "some time" after the asset purchase program has ended (Q4/2019, in our view). Hence, Euro Area yield curves are likely to eventually see some bear-steepening pressure on the back of this week's ECB meeting. The story is similar for Peripheral European government bonds and Euro Area investment grade corporate credit. In Chart 9, we show the same growth rates of the ECB monetary base with our scenario projections versus the 10-year Italy-Germany spread, 10-year Spain-Germany spread, 10-year Portugal-Germany spread and the Barclays Bloomberg Euro Area Investment Grade corporate spread. While the correlations are not as clear as that for German yields, a slower pace of ECB asset purchases would be consistent with some spread widening in Peripheral European and in corporate credit. Chart 8ECB Bond Buying:##BR##Watch The Pace, Not The Level ECB Bond Buying: Watch The Pace, Not The Level ECB Bond Buying: Watch The Pace, Not The Level Chart 9European Credit Spreads##BR##Set To Widen Post-ECB? European Credit Spreads Set To Widen Post-ECB? European Credit Spreads Set To Widen Post-ECB? Bottom Line: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19th 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For Steeper Yield Curves", dated October 3rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-22/draghi-seen-going-for-ecb-bond-buying-limit-in-qe-s-last-hurrah The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index How To Trade The Trade-Offs How To Trade The Trade-Offs Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The economic momentum of China's "mini-cycle" appears to have peaked earlier this year. A benign moderation in growth is the most likely outcome, but this report reviews some factors to watch over the coming year to track the character of the slowdown. This month's Party Congress will hopefully provide investors with some clues whether policymakers have learned from their past mistakes of failing to combine any painful structural reforms with an appropriate amount of fiscal support. Shorter-term measures of money & credit in China are hooking up, and most measures of global growth are still signaling robust export demand. An eventual stabilization in the housing market will be an important signal confirming the benign nature of China's economic slowdown. Investors should remain overweight the MSCI China Free index versus the emerging market benchmark. Feature We reiterated the case for a benign cyclical slowdown of the Chinese economy in last week's report, by highlighting several forces that are working to support stable economic activity.1 Specifically, we noted that: There is presently little risk of aggressive policy tightening on the horizon. There is likely to be reduced downside cyclicality in China's industrial and real estate sectors, owing to the past imposition of "supply side" constraints. External demand will continue to support the Chinese economy, even if global growth momentum moderates. Chart 1 presents a stylized view of the Chinese economy over the past three years, which illustrates our framework of how cyclical growth conditions have evolved over this "mini-cycle". It also highlights three possible outcomes for the coming 6-12 months. Chart 1A Stylized View Of China's Recent 'Mini-Cycle' Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle The chart shows how the Chinese economy began to operate below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth in early-2015, owing to a "double whammy" of excessively tight monetary conditions and a synchronized global downturn. Policy easing succeeded in sparking a V-shaped rebound in some sectors of the economy (particularly housing), and caused an attendant rally in Chinese relative equity performance (vs EM), emerging market relative performance (vs global), and industrial metals prices. However, based on a number of "hard" growth indicators, the economic momentum of the "mini-cycle" appears to have peaked earlier this year. This raises the question of what is likely to be the character of Chinese economic growth over the coming year, with Chart 1 presenting three distinct scenarios: 1) a re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, 2) a benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into the "stable" growth range, and 3) an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). Our bet is clearly on scenario 2, but this week's report reviews some factors to watch over the coming year in order to monitor the end of China's mini-cycle and its implications for investment strategy. Policy Risk And The Party Congress China's 19th Party Congress is likely to dominate media headlines about China over the coming two weeks. While it is unlikely that a major, explicit policy announcement will emerge from the Congress, investors are likely to focus on the policy implications of the leadership rotation, as well as any signals from President Xi Jinping's opening speech. Indeed, the next two reports of this publication will be devoted to the Party Congress and our assessment of the economic and financial market impact of the event. Chart 2Bold Action Can Follow ##br##Midterm Congresses Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle We recently published a primer explaining the Party Congress,2 and noted that major new policy initiatives can emerge during the March National People's Congress that follows a "midterm" Party Congress. For instance, Premier Zhu Rongji was appointed to launch the "assault stage" of President Jiang Zemin's reforms of state-owned enterprise at the National People's Congress in March 1998 (Chart 2). Similarly, Hu Jintao's Premier Wen Jiabao launched extensive administrative reforms at the NPC meeting in early 2008. When forecasting the character of Chinese economic growth over the coming year, the relevance of the Party Congress comes into play when assessing whether policymakers have learned from their past mistakes by combining any painful structural reforms with the appropriate amount of fiscal support to manage demand in the economy during the adjustment phase. In the past, policymakers have been preoccupied with the idea that the economy needs painful but eventually rewarding economic reforms, and have viewed short term policy easing as endangering reforms and as a contributor to further structural imbalances. In essence, authorities have in the past cornered themselves into a self-imposed 'either/or' choice between supply-side reforms and demand-side countercyclical policies, rather than pursuing a sensible balance between structural reforms and policy easing to mitigate headwinds. For example, the main pillars of "Likonomics", named after the Chinese premier, were touted as "deleveraging, structural reforms and no stimulus", in stark contrast to the three arrows of Japan's "Abenomics", including fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms. For now, our view is that policymakers will provide the fiscal support required for the economy to avoid a potentially sharp downturn were they to aggressively pursue structural reform initiatives, given what occurred in 2015. But this assessment remains a key risk to our view of a benign cyclical slowdown, and we will be watching the Party Congress closely for any indications to the contrary. Domestic Demand Momentum Chart 3Shorter-Term Measures Of ##br##Money & Credit Growth Are Positive Shorter-Term Measures Of Money & Credit Growth Are Positive Shorter-Term Measures Of Money & Credit Growth Are Positive We noted above that China's domestic growth momentum is unlikely to decelerate materially, owing to the lack of aggressive policy tightening and the fact that some of China's industries have not experienced a major cyclical upswing (and thus are less likely to experience a major downswing). Supporting this view, shorter-term measures of money & credit in China are hooking up, suggesting that year-over-year measures may soon stabilize (or even accelerate modestly). Chart 3 presents the growth in M2 and two measures of credit, both on a year-over-year and 3-month annualized basis.3 While the latter measure is highly volatile and dependent on a seasonal-adjustment process that may not perfectly capture the seasonal component of Chinese economic data, it should be noted that all three shorter-term measures are at or above their year-over-year rates of change. Despite this, an outsized slowdown in non-supply constrained industries cannot be ruled out, even if it is far from our base case scenario. At a minimum, the potential for severe data disappointments exists, as Chart 4 highlights that the Chinese economy has already been surprising modestly to the downside over the past three months. Disappointing readings from industrial production, retail sales, and fixed-asset investment were particularly noticeable last month, which is in contrast to the steady uptrend in the surprise index that has prevailed since mid-2015. One recent trend that bears particular attention over the coming months is that of a weakening housing market. Chart 5 shows that house prices are beginning to decelerate on a year-over-year basis, and the pace of appreciation in home sales continues to decline. Worryingly, a 70-city diffusion index of house prices is also falling sharply, and to a level that would tend to imply a significant further deceleration in aggregate prices. A moderation in house price appreciation was all but inevitable given the magnitude of the boom over the past 2 years, and is not concerning in isolation (in fact, it reduces risk of escalating tightening measures). But given that home sales and prices were a key bellwether of the efficacy of policymakers' reflationary efforts over the past two years, and given the sharp decline in a broadly measured diffusion index, an eventual stabilization will be an important signal confirming the benign nature of China's economic slowdown. Chart 4Recently Surprising Modestly To The Downside Recently Surprising Modestly To The Downside Recently Surprising Modestly To The Downside Chart 5A Warning Sign From House Prices A Warning Sign From House Prices A Warning Sign From House Prices Trade, And Global Growth In last week's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, our colleague Mathieu Savary explored the potential for "yellow flags" that may herald a slowdown in global growth. A slowdown in global narrow money growth was the most notable of the potential warning signs that he highlighted, which historically has been a leading indicator of global industrial production (Chart 6). It is possible that the deceleration in narrow money growth may correctly forecast a mild slowdown in global trade, which would be negative for Chinese economic growth at the margin. Still, it is very unlikely that a gentle pullback in global growth momentum would be sufficient for China's "mini-cycle" to end in the 3rd scenario highlighted in Chart 1 above (an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in activity). In addition, narrow money growth is but one global growth indicator among many, several of which are still painting a rosy picture for China's external demand outlook: A GDP-weighted average of our consumer and capital spending indicators for the U.S., U.K., euro area, and Japan are suggesting that global GDP growth will continue to accelerate over the coming year (Chart 7). Barring a decline in global import intensity, this would imply that the acceleration in global export activity is just getting started. Chart 6A 'Yellow Flag' From Narrow Money Growth A 'Yellow Flag' From Narrow Money Growth A 'Yellow Flag' From Narrow Money Growth Chart 7Stronger G4 Growth Will Support China's Export Sector Stronger G4 Growth Will Support China's Export Sector Stronger G4 Growth Will Support China's Export Sector A recent update of our global LEI diffusion index suggests that the LEI itself is unlikely to significantly moderate (Chart 8). This is a notable development, as it somewhat reverses the concerning loss of momentum in the diffusion index that had occurred over the past year. Excluding the U.S., the improvement in the LEI diffusion index is still present, and the uptrend since late-2013 / early-2014 is more clearly defined (panel 2). Finally, both the EM and global PMIs remain in an uptrend, and are either at or near multi-year highs (Chart 9). The resilience of the EM PMI is particularly noteworthy, as much of the improvement in the index reflects the strength of the Caixin China PMI (despite the most recent tick down in the index). In addition, it is an underappreciated point among global investors that the EM PMI correctly forecast the onset of China's "mini-cycle" in 2015, and bottomed several months before the global PMI. The improvement of the EM PMI was sufficient to help catalyze a synchronized global economic recovery, despite having persistently lagged the global PMI in level terms. Chart 8A Positive Sign From Our Global LEIs A Positive Sign From Our Global LEIs A Positive Sign From Our Global LEIs Chart 9Manufacturing PMIs Are Not Heralding ##br##A Sharp Decline In Activity Manufacturing PMIs Are Not Heralding A Sharp Decline In Activity Manufacturing PMIs Are Not Heralding A Sharp Decline In Activity The Investment Strategy Implications Of A Benign Slowdown In China Taken together, the evidence noted above is more consistent with a benign end of China's mini-cycle than an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy. We will continue to track the pace of moderating economic activity, and will adjust our investment recommendations accordingly if China slows more aggressively than we expect. But for now, we see no reason to alter our constructive view on Chinese equities, suggesting that investors should remain overweight the MSCI China Free index versus the emerging market benchmark. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "On A Higher Note," dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 14, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 For the latter measure we use a seasonal-adjustment methodology employed by the U.S. Census Bureau to adjust all three series prior to calculating the 3-month annualized rate of change. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, This week, in addition to this regular Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, we decided to send you a collaborative report we penned with BCA's Energy Sector Strategy. My colleague Matt Conlan runs the service, which blends BCA's macroeconomic framework with his bottom-up expertise in the energy sector. Matt's service is one of the few that our firm publishes with specific company recommendations. In the report titled "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," Matt argues that the emerging détente between Russia and Saudi Arabia will strengthen OPEC 2.0 and provide a structural tailwind for BCA's bullish view on energy. I highly recommend that you check out the research Matt and his team produce at nrg.bcaresearch.com. All the very best, Marko Papic Senior Vice President, Geopolitical Strategy Highlights Easier fiscal policy and tighter monetary policy is bullish for U.S. equities; The Dec. 12 Alabama Senate race could be a game changer in U.S. politics; Trump's anti-immigration policies could boost inflation; Our Catalan view is bearing out. Go long Spain's IBEX 35 / short Eurostoxx 50. Separately, book profits on our China volatility trade and our long China big bank trade. Feature "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" has been our mantra throughout the summer. Despite the doom and gloom in the media surrounding the Mueller investigation, North Korea, Trump's legislative agenda, the French elections, Brexit, and so on, the S&P 500 is up 16% and global equities are up 10.8%. Our April 23 Weekly Report bearing the same cheery title focused on three overstated risks:1 European politics - massively overstated; U.S. politics - all noise, no signal; Brexit - irrelevant for global investors. We have also cautioned investors throughout the year to worry, but not to obsess, about North Korea. Yes, it is a risk.2 Yes, it will continue to buoy safe haven assets on occasion.3 But it is extremely unlikely to produce total war and therefore has lost some market relevance as assets have adjusted to the higher geopolitical volatility on the Korean Peninsula under the Trump regime.4 We are not reiterating these calls just to pat ourselves on the back. Rather, our point is to emphasize that there is nothing supernatural about the ongoing bull market. It has not "ignored" geopolitical risks. Rather, geopolitical risks on hand have not developed in a market-relevant way. The bottom line here is that geopolitics is not voodoo. It is not an "error term," a disturbance in an elegant model that can go awry at any moment because "one cannot forecast politics." Investors can systematically analyze geopolitics just as they do the economy or the markets. When geopolitical risks are overstated, as they have been since the beginning of the year, recognizing the mispricing can generate significant alpha. Going forward, however, geopolitics will likely play a headwind for the market. We are particularly concerned with three dynamics: The upcoming party congress in China may signal a shift towards more growth-stalling reforms, as we have been writing all year. The Trump administration could make a hard turn towards a more populist agenda, particularly on trade, if it fails to enact any legislative successes this year. A plethora of political risks in emerging markets (EM) - with the usual suspects of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey on top of our list - could re-surface in 2018 if China is not firing on all cylinders. We will be focusing on these three risks to markets until the end of 2017 and beyond. This week, however, we focus on upcoming tax legislation in the U.S. First, a reason to be optimistic ("easier fiscal policy, tighter monetary policy" is a winning policy combination). Then, a reason to be pessimistic (Alabama). Finally, a few words about inflation from a political perspective and a quick word on Catalonia. Easy Fiscal, Tighter Monetary Policy Mix - What Does It Mean? If our base case view on tax legislation is correct, U.S. equities should gain double-digit returns from current levels. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, believes that the passage of stimulative tax legislation would serve as a catalyst to further fuel the blow-off phase in equities. In his latest Weekly Report, Anastasios presents empirical evidence suggesting that easy fiscal policy outweighs the drag from Fed interest rate tightening.5 Filtering the post-World War Two era for periods of easing fiscal and tightening monetary policies during economic expansions is revealing. Anastasios defines easy fiscal policy as periods with a positive fiscal thrust and tight monetary policy as a rising fed funds rate. Fiscal thrust is the year-over-year change in the cyclically-adjusted fiscal balance as a percentage of potential GDP (shown inverted on the bottom panel of Chart 1). While such a policy mix is a rare occurrence, it has happened seven times since the mid-1950s (shaded areas, Chart 1).6 All iterations resulted in positive returns, with the SPX rising on average by over 16%. Table 1 details all seven periods that have an average duration of 16 months. For sectoral implications of such an "easier fiscal, tighter monetary" policy mix, we encourage our clients to peruse the work of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy. On the other hand, the demand for fiscal stimulus usually rises during times of high volatility, unlike today (Chart 2). Investors have become acutely aware of the political difficulties of stimulating the economy late in the economic cycle. We now turn to some emerging risks to our sanguine view on tax policy. Chart 1Easy Fiscal + Tight Money##br## = Buy SPX Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Table 1SPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Why So Serious? Why So Serious? Chart 2Fiscal Stimulus Usually##br## Comes With High Volatility Fiscal Stimulus Usually Comes With High Volatility Fiscal Stimulus Usually Comes With High Volatility Bottom Line: If our base case view holds, and Republicans pass mildly stimulative tax legislation, the blow-off phase in equities should continue. "Alabama, You Got The Weight On Your Shoulders" The market continues to doubt that the Trump administration can pass significant tax legislation over the next six-to-nine months. The gap in the probabilities assigned to such an outcome by the market and ourselves has narrowed over the past two weeks, generating alpha on several of our "Trump Reflation" trades (Chart 3). But skepticism abounds. Chart 3Signs Of Life For 'Trump Reflation' Trades Signs Of Life For 'Trump Reflation' Trades Signs Of Life For 'Trump Reflation' Trades We have spent the entire year pushing against the skepticism, but there is now an actual reason to worry. The December 12 Alabama Senate special election - being held to elect a replacement for former Senator Jeff Sessions, now the U.S. Attorney General - has become a premier league event. Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore won the Republican primary against a candidate backed by the Republican establishment and President Trump. The reason the Alabama special election is of global significance is because the Republicans are already down to essentially 50 votes in the Senate. The rhetorical war between President Donald Trump and Senator Bob Corker (R - Tennessee) has reached epic proportions, with the latter insinuating via twitter that the president was an adult baby. Corker has announced his retirement from the Senate, which increases the probability that he will go out by refusing to support the president's agenda across all fronts.7 This now makes two GOP senators that want nothing to do with President Trump's agenda. John McCain (R - Arizona) has harbored ill will since the presidential campaign and has twice played the spoiler in the effort to repeal Obamacare. Further complicating matters is the role of former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who strongly backed Moore when nobody in the Republican establishment would. If Moore should remain loyal to Bannon beyond the election, it would mean that Trump's former campaign strategist would become the kingmaker on tax legislation. Bannon's departure from the White House was cheered by the markets, as it signaled victory for the "Goldman Sachs clique" and the trio of generals managing President Trump's foreign policy over Bannon's populist "Breitbart clique." We do not think that Bannon is opposed to stimulative tax policy. Yes, he has branded his ideology "economic nationalism," but his media empire, Breitbart, has so far stayed away from attacking the Republican tax plan. Instead, Bannon and Moore could hold out on supporting tax policy until they see movement on other pillars of the populist agenda, namely on immigration policy. As such, Moore's Alabama victory would complicate the horse-trading surrounding tax legislation, and elevate Bannon's standing on Capitol Hill, but it would not be a death knell for stimulus. The actual death knell for tax reform would be if Moore actually lost the December 12 Alabama special election. Moore's views are generally considered to be staunchly conservative, even for Alabama, and therefore a shock defeat cannot be ignored.8 Polls are limited, but most show Moore leading the Democratic candidate Doug Jones by only 5%-8%. This in a state where Republican Senate candidates have defeated their Democrat counterparts by an astounding average of 36% in the last decade! If Jones were to win, Republicans would be down to 51 Senators. Given the staunch opposition to Trump by Corker and McCain, this would effectively end the tax legislation push. Not all is negative for the tax push in Washington. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution that includes steep spending cuts as well as reconciliation instructions for tax legislation. This now sets in motion the reconciliation process by which Republicans can pass tax legislation with merely 51 votes in the Senate. Of the 18 GOP representatives who voted against the budget resolution, only three were from the 31-member Freedom Caucus, which is rhetorically committed to fiscal conservativism. This is very bullish for tax cuts as it means that the Freedom Caucus is toeing the line of its Chair Mark Meadows (R - North Carolina) who has been hinting since the spring that he would have no problem with budget-busting tax cuts. The majority of Republicans who voted against the budget resolution were from highly-taxed "Blue States," suggesting that the real point of contention for Republicans in the House was the proposal to end the state and local tax deduction. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has already signaled that the White House is willing to compromise on this particular revenue offset. Bottom Line: The December 12 Alabama special election now has global market relevance. A defeat for GOP candidate Roy Moore would be a massive game changer. It would reduce the Republican majority in the Senate to 51 votes, putting in danger President Trump's tax agenda given the staunch opposition from Senators Corker and McCain. What Can Politics Do To Inflation? The greatest surprise to the markets this year has been lackluster inflation data in the U.S. Both headline and core data have been disappointing (Chart 4). This is particularly puzzling as the U.S. has closed its output gap and unemployment has fallen below the low reached in 2007 (Chart 5). Chart 4U.S. Inflation Has Disappointed... U.S. Inflation Has Disappointed... U.S. Inflation Has Disappointed... Chart 5...Which Is Puzzling At Full Employment ...Which Is Puzzling At Full Employment ...Which Is Puzzling At Full Employment One possible explanation is that the U.S. has been importing deflation from abroad. The U.S. imports around 12.5% of GDP worth of goods and 2.8% of GDP worth of services (Chart 6). However, the import price deflator has been growing at 2.7% so far this year and yet inflation has been nonexistent (Chart 6, bottom panel). Export prices have grown by 5% in 2017, from the lows of -15% amidst the commodity bust in 2015 (Chart 7). Chart 6The U.S. Is Not Importing Deflation The U.S. Is Not Importing Deflation The U.S. Is Not Importing Deflation Chart 7Global Export Prices Are Rising Global Export Prices Are Rising Global Export Prices Are Rising Another explanation is that structural changes in the labor market - globalization and the fall in the unionization rate - have eroded the bargaining power of workers (Chart 8). When combined with the shock of the 2008 Great Recession, workers may simply be happy to have a job and are therefore delaying asking of a raise or switching to a higher-paying, but higher-risk, job. As a result, the economy may have closed its output gap, but with no inflationary effects coming from the low unemployment figures. Chart 8Globalization Suppressed U.S. Wages Globalization Suppressed U.S. Wages Globalization Suppressed U.S. Wages Further restricting wage gains may be the high number of migrants - legal or illegal (Chart 9). The foreign born population in the U.S. is at an all-time high of 43.2 million, although unauthorized migration has come down from around 12 million prior to the GFC to 11.3 million in 2016. The conventional wisdom is that most immigrants are uneducated, competing with blue collar laborers and suppressing wages at the lower income levels. However, this is a stereotype stuck in the 1980s. Today's migrants are as educated as Americans: 29.7% have a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared with just over 30% Americans in general (Chart 10). Chart 9Immigration Helps Explain Weak Wage Growth Why So Serious? Why So Serious? Chart 10Immigrants Not Stealing Low-Skill Jobs Why So Serious? Why So Serious? The point is that immigration has evolved along with the U.S. economy. With 78% of the U.S. economy based in services, the modern migrant has had to keep up with the educational requirements of the American job market. The Trump administration could be a game-changer for the skilled, legal immigration into the U.S. First, President Trump ordered a full review of the high-skilled, H-1B immigration visa in April. Second, President Trump asked Congress in August to curb legal migration by sharply curtailing family reunification while keeping immigration based on job skills roughly the same. Third, anti-immigrant rhetoric - as well as restrictions to family reunification down the line - could influence highly-skilled migrants to choose job opportunities in countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, instead of in the U.S. Bottom Line: Investors often think of fiscal policy as the main vehicle through which politicians can influence inflation. However, the U.S. economy has been enjoying, since the 1980s, the combined effect of rapidly expanding immigration and a parallel increase in the educational attainment of incoming migrants. In a way, the influx of skilled migrants has been an important supply side reform for the U.S. economy. The Trump administration could influence immigration either directly, through policies to curb it, or indirectly, through creating a general atmosphere that redirects some of the flows to other developed economies. Spain: Fade Catalan Risks As we have expected since 2014, the prospects for Catalan independence remain slim.9 As we go to press, Catalan President Carles Puigdemont has backed away from his earlier hints toward a unilateral declaration of independence. Instead, he has succumbed to domestic and international pressure and told the regional parliament that he has "suspended" any declaration in order to begin negotiations with Madrid. Puigdemont's decision to suspend something that has not happened is not only illogical but also ineffectual. The Catalan pro-independence government is trying to force Madrid to be the "bad guy" and refuse negotiations; Spain has refused any discussion of independence. But slight narrative shifts and "gotcha" politics will not work in this case. While Puigdemont is playing checkers with Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, the rest of Europe is playing chess. International recognition of Catalan independence is not forthcoming. And without it, Catalonia will not become independent. As we have extensively written, we strongly believe that investors should fade secessionism risk in Spain. First, the independence process in Catalonia falls far short of the democratic ideals established in similar referendums in the developed world, particularly in Scotland (2014), Montenegro (2006), and Quebec (1980 and 1995) (Table 2). The pro-independence government has been unable to significantly boost turnout figures from 2014, no doubt due to interference by the federal authorities. However, even if the pro-independence Catalans were to receive mediation from the EU, the outcome would likely be to strengthen Madrid's hand. For example, when the EU negotiated the 2006 divorce between Serbia and Montenegro, it required a supermajority of 55% in order to recognize the result of the Montenegro independence referendum. As an integrationist project, the EU has an anti-secession bias. Table 2Catalan Independence Demand Exaggerated By Low Voter Turnout Why So Serious? Why So Serious? Second, the French government has come out forcefully against Catalan independence, as we suspected it would. This is particularly important for Catalonia as it is nestled between Spain and France.10 It is quite likely that, were Catalans somehow to enforce their independence, both European powers would close their borders to Catalan travel and trade. In addition, French European Affairs Minister Nathalie Louiseau has repeated Madrid's assertion that by choosing independence Catalonia would automatically be kicked out of the EU. Third, Madrid is unlikely to make another mistake as the disastrous attempt to disrupt the independence referendum. Images of civilians being dragged through the streets of an advanced European economy while attempting to vote - even if the referendum was constitutionally illegal - shocked the world. Spanish officials have already offered rather tepid apologies for the police action, suggesting that a re-run of the heavy-handed actions is not to be expected. For investors who disagree with us, we suggest an empirical way to test our thesis. Chart 11 shows that only 34.7% of Catalans support independence. These are not pro-Madrid polls. They are the product of the Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, which is affiliated with the Catalan (currently staunchly pro-independence) government and has been conducting polls on the issue of independence since 2005. Even if the level of support for independence is off in this data, the direction gives us valuable insight into the support for secession. The data clearly suggests that (A) the majority of Catalans have never supported independence and that (B) support for independence peaked in 2013, at the height of Spain's economic crisis, and has been in steady decline since then. That said, Chart 11 also shows that the other 57.5% of Catalans are not necessarily "pro-Spain." In fact, 30.5% support Catalonia remaining in its current form of an autonomous region, with considerable sovereignty devolved to the province. Another 21.7% favor a federal state, which would be a step in the direction of even greater sovereignty. Investors should watch the polls to see whether voters who previously favored federal or autonomous status have begun to shift towards independence, especially in light of the crackdown against the referendum by Madrid. Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió normally releases its third series of polls in October, which would mean that investors will have an update from the official polling agency soon. That said, we are willing to put our geopolitical views on the line. An unwarranted selloff in Spanish equities on the back of increased Catalonia-related geopolitical risk has created an opportunity for a market neutral trade: long Spanish IBEX 35/short Eurostoxx 50. This is a market neutral way to express our view that Catalonia does not pose a grand geopolitical risk as it will remain an integral part of Spain and thus the EU. Importantly, adding a hedge to this pair trade would also make sense for certain investors. Chart 12 shows that EUR/USD and relative Spanish equity performance are joined at the hip. Currently an uncharacteristically wide gap has opened. Thus, putting on this equity pair trade and simultaneously going short EUR/USD on the expectation of a convergence, should generate alpha, as the geopolitical dust settles. Chart 11The Silent Majority Fears Independence The Silent Majority Fears Independence The Silent Majority Fears Independence Chart 12Expect A Convergence Expect A Convergence Expect A Convergence Bottom Line: Fade geopolitical risks in Spain. For those with risk appetite, buy Spanish equities at any sign of geopolitical risk premium. Housekeeping With the Communist Party convening for the nineteenth National Party Congress over the next week, we think the time is opportune to book profits on two trades: our long China ETF volatility index, for a gain of 17.72%, and our long Chinese Big Five state-owned banks versus small and medium-sized banks, for a gain of 11.63%. We will revisit these trades in an upcoming report. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?" dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 Omitted from the sample are brief periods in the early-1960s, early-1970s, and twice in the early-1980s as they were very close to the end of recessions. 7 We suspect that Senator Corker is planning a centrist challenge to President Trump in the 2020 GOP presidential primaries. 8 "Staunchly conservative" does not do justice to Moore's ideological orientation. He was removed from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court twice for failing to follow federal law. In both cases, Moore chose to inform his actions as the Chief Justice through Biblical scripture, rather than the U.S. Constitution. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Yes, we are aware that Catalonia also borders Andorra. However, given that French President Emmanuel Macro is the co-prince of Andorra, and that Andorra is a microstate, this fact is largely irrelevant and would in no way aid Catalan independence. However, you have now learned that the French President is automatically a co-prince of another country. And that there is such a thing as a "co-prince." Therefore, this footnote has not been a complete waste of your time.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Go long industrials/short discretionary. Leading indicators of interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative exports all signal that industrials stocks will outperform their consumer discretionary peers. A price war is gripping airlines anew, and it will suck the air out of the industry. Recent Changes Long S&P Industrials/Short S&P Consumer Discretionary - Initiate this pair trade today. Table 1 Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy? Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy? Feature Tax relief euphoria propelled the S&P 500 to fresh all-time highs last week. While such exuberance has rekindled the "Trump trade" with small caps outshining mega caps and banks soaring (as a reminder we have a small cap size bias and are overweight financials/banks1), it will likely prove fleeting unless the tax bill becomes law. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a tax bill passage is likely in Q1/2018.2 Were that to materialize, it would serve as a catalyst to further fuel the blow off phase in equities. Why? Empirical evidence suggests that easy fiscal policy outweighs the drag from Fed interest rate tightening. Filtering the post WWII era for periods of easing fiscal and tightening monetary policies during expansions is revealing. We define easy fiscal policy as increasing fiscal thrust (year-over-year change in cyclically-adjusted fiscal balance as a percentage of potential GDP, shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 1) and tight monetary policy as a rising fed funds rate. Chart 1Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX While this is a rare occurrence, it has clearly happened seven times since the mid-1950s (shaded areas, Chart 1). As a clarification, we omitted the brief periods in the early-1960s, early-1970s and twice in the early-1980s as they were very close to the end of those recessions and positively skewed the results. All iterations resulted in positive stock returns with the SPX rising on average by over 16%. Table 2 details all seven periods that have an average duration of 16 months. There are high odds that a tax bill enactment coupled with a potential infrastructure spending bill will more than cushion the blow from the Fed's interest rate hikes in 2018, and sustain the overshoot phase in equities. As we recently showed in our equity market indicator White Paper, the business cycle stays intact during Fed tightening cycles, and historically a peak in the fed funds rate presages a recession.3 Importantly, the highly cyclical part of the U.S. economy is humming. The latest ISM manufacturing survey showed that new orders are running 20% higher than inventories, with the headline number soaring to a 13 year high (third panel, Chart 2). Prices paid also spiked to above 70, signaling that commodity inflation is looming. And, were the capex revival to gain steam as most of the leading indicators we track suggest (see Chart 8 from the October 2nd Weekly Report), then late cyclicals will continue to benefit from end-demand resurgence. Table 2SPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy? Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy? Chart 2It's Deep##br## Cyclicals' Time It's Deep Cyclicals' Time It's Deep Cyclicals' Time As a result, we reiterate last week's upgrade of the S&P industrials sector to overweight, and this week we add more deep cyclical exposure to our portfolio by initiating a market-neutral pair trade to benefit from this enticing macro backdrop. Industrials Will Outmuscle Consumer Discretionary In the past few weeks, we have tweaked our cyclical portfolio exposure by downgrading early-cyclical consumer discretionary stocks to a benchmark allocation and lifting the late cyclical industrials complex to overweight. In fact, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to buy industrials at the expense of discretionary stocks has surfaced, and we recommend a new long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade to exploit this tradable opportunity. Chart 3 shows that relative share prices recently bounced near the early-1970s all-time lows and a mini V-shaped recovery is taking root. The industrials/discretionary price ratio has been in a downtrend for the better part of the past decade and the most recent peak-to-trough collapse has been a 4 standard deviation move (Chart 3). Even a modest relative performance renormalization near the historical mean would translate into impressive returns. Chart 3Compelling Entry Point Compelling Entry Point Compelling Entry Point Four key drivers underpin our warming up to this late over early cyclical pair trade: interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative export backdrop. The Fed embarked on a fresh tightening interest rate cycle almost two years ago and is on track to lift the fed funds rate another 100bps by the end of 2018 according to the FOMC's median dot forecast. Interest rate-sensitive stocks suffer when the Fed tightens monetary policy, whereas deep cyclicals disproportionately benefit from accelerating economic growth. Chart 4 confirms that over the past four decades a rising fed funds rate has been synonymous with an increase in the relative share price ratio and vice versa. Chart 4Tight Money Is Good For Industrials But Weighs On Discretionary Tight Money Is Good For Industrials But Weighs On Discretionary Tight Money Is Good For Industrials But Weighs On Discretionary The framework we use on the interest rate front is that higher interest rates represent a sizable hindrance to consumer spending (top and second panel Chart 5). Not only does the price of housing-related credit rise in lockstep with fed hikes, but also auto and credit card interest rates, two major consumer loan categories, increase on the back of the Fed's tighter monetary backdrop. True, C&I loan pricing also suffers a setback, but capital goods producers can bypass banks and raise debt in the bond markets. In fact, this cycle, the global hunt for yield and unconventional monetary policies have suppressed interest rates to the benefit of corporate borrowers. One final relative advantage industrials outfits have this cycle is rising pricing power in the form of firming commodity prices (third panel, Chart 5), while wage growth/median income (a proxy for consumer pricing power) has been subpar. Taken together, higher interest rates and rising commodity prices should continue to underpin relative share price momentum (Chart 5). Relative sentiment readings also suggest that industrials manufacturers have the upper hand versus consumer discretionary companies (Chart 6). The overall ISM manufacturing survey is easily outpacing consumer confidence readings. Importantly, the ISM survey and most of the subcomponents are making multi-year highs, while both the University of Michigan's consumer sentiment survey and The Conference Board's consumer confidence reading peaked in early 2017. Chart 5Commodity Inflation Is A Boon For##br## Industrials But Bane For Discretionary Commodity Inflation Is A Boon For Industrials But Bane For Discretionary Commodity Inflation Is A Boon For Industrials But Bane For Discretionary Chart 6Manufacturing Flexing ##br##Its Muscles Manufacturing Flexing Its Muscles Manufacturing Flexing Its Muscles With regard to the relative demand landscape, a sustained capital expenditure upcycle is promising for capital goods producers (second panel, Chart 7), at a time when personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are anemic at best. Notably, real capital outlays have been rising at a faster clip than real PCE, signaling that the upward trajectory in relative forward EPS estimates is sustainable (middle panel, Chart 7). Our relative pricing power gauge has recently come out of its funk reflecting this improving relative demand backdrop. The implication is that a rerating phase is likely in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 7). Finally, the relative export backdrop suggests that industrials come out on top of discretionary stocks (top panel, Chart 8). According to FactSet the S&P consumer discretionary sector's foreign revenue exposure stands at 24% of total sales, and it is roughly 60% higher for the S&P industrials sector at 38% of revenues.4 While the year-to-date breakdown in the greenback is stimulative for industrials exporters, it is, at the margin, restrictive for the more domestically oriented consumer discretionary companies (trade-weighted dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 8). Our relative EPS growth models best capture all of these moving parts and suggest that the path of least resistance for relative profit growth is higher in the coming quarters (Chart 9). Chart 7Capex##br## Upcycle... Capex Upcycle... Capex Upcycle... Chart 8... And Export Markets Benefit Industrials##br## At The Expense Of Discretionary ... And Export Markets Benefit Industrials At The Expense Of Discretionary ... And Export Markets Benefit Industrials At The Expense Of Discretionary Chart 9Relative Profit Growth Models Also Say##br## Buy The Relative Share Price Ratio Relative Profit Growth Models Also Say Buy The Relative Share Price Ratio Relative Profit Growth Models Also Say Buy The Relative Share Price Ratio Adding up, all four key macro variables (interest rates, relative sentiment, relative demand and relative export exposure) signal that the time is ripe for a new industrials versus discretionary pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P industrials/short S&P consumer discretionary sector pair trade. Airlines Update: Mayday While we have turned positive on the broad industrials complex and remain constructive on most transports, we continue to recommend investors avoid the S&P airlines index. This decade has seen a huge recovery in consumer confidence, rising from the depths of the Great Recession. The consumer's revival has been matched by equally steep growth in airline passenger traffic (Chart 10). However, the resurgence in passenger demand has not had the expected uplift in pricing. Rather, the opposite has happened; consumers have not seen a sustainable price increase in years and airline pricing power has collapsed, even in the face of soaring jet fuel costs that eat into profits (Chart 11). The costly price war between the low cost carriers and the largely-restructured legacy airlines the industry is currently embroiled in explains deflating airfares (Chart 12). Chart 10More Passengers... More Passengers... More Passengers... Chart 11... But Higher Fuel Costs... ... But Higher Fuel Costs... ... But Higher Fuel Costs... Chart 12... And Price Concessions Crash Profits ... And Price Concessions Crash Profits ... And Price Concessions Crash Profits The industry has been here before, and recently too. 2015 was a tumultuous year that saw pricing collapse as the ultra-low cost carriers entered the traditional hubs, triggering a scramble for market share. Brave airline investors have been whipsawed as the industry recovered and then stumbled again earlier this year. From a profit perspective, airlines have been able to hide poor pricing with efficiency gains (Chart 13). Industry load factors have been steadily moving upward, though those gains appear to have plateaued at peak levels. The implication is that this current price war will hit profit margins and thus the bottom line worse than in the past (Chart 13). Expanding international air travel could provide some relief to the besieged legacy carriers as international airfares look to have pulled out of deflation (Chart 14). However, the sustainability of positive pricing is questionable as international no-frills carriers are gaining greater penetration and often have significantly lower cost structures. Once unheard of trans-Atlantic travel for below $200 is now widely available. Chart 13Masking Poor Pricing Backdrop Masking Poor Pricing Backdrop Masking Poor Pricing Backdrop Chart 14Analysts Ignore Positives Analysts Ignore Positives Analysts Ignore Positives At the same time as cash generation appears most threatened, the industry is in the midst of an expensive fleet renewal as airlines seek to replace declining prices and aging fleets with higher volume and more efficient aircraft. In fact, capex as a percentage of sales has nearly tripled since 2012. The result is predictable; the hard deleveraging work the industry put in over the course of this decade is being unwound (Chart 13). An increasingly geared balance sheet, combined with weakening margins should translate directly into a higher risk premium and lower valuation multiples. However, while multiples have fallen from the sky-high levels earlier this decade, they remain well above the lows of 2015-16 (Chart 14). This implies further downside risk should risk premiums expand as we expect. With sell-side analysts jumping on board the bear story, as evidenced by net forward earnings revisions falling off a cliff (Chart 14), this should probably happen sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: With no end in sight to the price war and outsized capacity additions likely to throw fuel on the fire, we think investors should stay away from the S&P airlines index. Accordingly, we reiterate our underweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL - DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report,"Girding For A Breakout?" dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report,"Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Chart 55 of BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: U.S. Equity Market Indicators (Part I)", dated August 7, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.factset.com/earningsinsight Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Oil Breakout: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. Trump Trade: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Taper: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Feature A More "Normal" Bond Market Chart of the WeekLike Deja Vu All Over Again Like Déjà Vu All Over Again Like Déjà Vu All Over Again Global bond yields have bounced very sharply off the September lows. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a 3-month intraday high of 2.37% yesterday, while the 10-year German Bund yield touched 0.5% last week. Bond markets have returned to focusing on traditional fundamentals, like growth and inflation, after spending a few weeks worrying about nuclear tensions with North Korea and other political matters. On that note, the global economic news continues to point towards continued solid growth, rising inflation pressures and, in response, less accommodative monetary policy. There is scope for additional increases in bond yields, as markets are still pricing in too much pessimism on inflation and too little hawkishness from central bankers. The latter is especially true in the U.S. where the Federal Reserve is sticking with its plans to deliver another 100bps of rate hikes by the end of 2018 if its growth and inflation forecasts are realized. The odds of that happening would increase substantially if the Trump Administration can successfully deliver tax cuts, which would represent a very rare occurrence of a fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment in the U.S. The announcement last week of the Trump tax cut proposals did send a whiff of the old "Trump trade" dynamic through financial markets. The U.S. Treasury curve bear-steepened, the U.S. dollar rallied, inflation expectations rose and the S&P 500 blasted through the 2500 level to hit a new all-time high. Stocks of companies that pay higher tax rates outperformed, just like they did after the election of President Trump nearly one year ago (Chart of the Week). Add in some additional reflationary pressure from Brent oil prices approaching $60/bbl, and it is no surprise that yield curves in most Developed Markets (not just the U.S.) steepened. With this reflationary backdrop, amid tight labor markets and a solid pace of coordinated global growth, we continue to recommend fixed income investors maintain a defensive duration posture, while favoring spread product over government bonds. Yields will continue to rise in the next 6-12 months, but led more by the long-end initially. In particular, we expect government bond yield curves to extend the recent trend of bear-steepening, for three reasons: rising inflation expectations, increased optimism on U.S. fiscal policy and what it means for the Fed, and the upcoming announcement of a tapering of bond purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB). Are Bond Investors Too Complacent On The Inflationary Impact Of Higher Oil Prices? We have received a surprisingly small amount of criticism from the BCA client base about our bearish strategic view on global government bonds in recent months. Perhaps that is because our clients also have a negative opinion on duration risk. At our annual investment conference in New York last week, we conducted polls which showed that a majority of the attendees expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to rise to between 2.5% & 3% by this time next year. At the same time, only 1 in 4 respondents felt that being short duration in U.S. Treasuries was the "contrarian" trade that was most likely to succeed over next 12 months - perhaps because betting on higher yields is not really a contrarian opinion right now! Yet we wonder how aggressively investors in aggregate, and not just BCA clients, are positioned for a rising yield environment. The market is only discounting 40bps of Fed rate hikes over the next twelve months, even as the U.S. economic data flow continues to improve and the Trump Trade is coming back in style (Chart 2). Survey data shows that professional bond managers are running only small duration underweights, yet speculators are still running very net long positions in Treasury futures. In other Developed Markets, there are not a lot of rate hikes priced outside of Canada - where the central bank actually is tightening policy - despite our Central Bank Monitors all calling for policymakers to become less dovish, if not more outright hawkish, as we discussed last week.1 In their defense, bond investors have had a lot of non-economic factors to digest in the past couple of months - not the least of which is judging how much of an "apocalypse premium" to price into bond yields given the nuclear saber rattling between D.C. and Pyongyang. Yet when stepping back away from the headlines and tweets, bond markets have been noting the implications of rising oil prices in a typical manner - higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves. Oil prices have risen over $10/bbl since the June lows, led by a combination of rising demand on the back of an expanding global economy and a diminished supply response that has seen excessive inventories start to be wound down (Chart 3). BCA's commodity strategists have been expecting such a move to unfold, and prices have already risen into the $55-60/bbl range (on Brent crude) that they were calling for towards year-end. While a move beyond $60/bbl is not currently expected, any additional upside surprises in global growth can only tighten the supply/demand balance in an oil-bullish direction. At a minimum, oil prices can consolidate recent gains, providing a floor to inflation expectations. Already, the breakeven rate on 10-year TIPS in the U.S. have risen 18bps off the June lows, which has prevented the slope of the Treasury curve from flattening even as the 2-year Treasury yield hit an 9-year high last week (Chart 4). We expect to see more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve in the next few months as realized inflation rates begin to grind higher and the Fed will be relatively slow to respond - they'll need to see the inflation pick up first before delivering more rate hikes. This will result in higher market-based inflation expectations (i.e. wider TIPS breakevens) as investors price in a greater chance that inflation will sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target. While oil is not the only factor that matters for U.S. inflation, it is a lot harder for investors to believe that core PCE inflation can rise to 2% without higher oil prices. Chart 2A Revival Of The Trump Trade? A Revival Of The Trump Trade? A Revival Of The Trump Trade? Chart 3A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil Chart 4Oil Vs. The U.S. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.S. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.S. Yield Curve A similar dynamic is taking place in other countries. Inflation expectations (linkers or CPI swaps) are rising alongside rising energy prices in the Euro Area (Chart 5), U.K. (Chart 6), Canada (Chart 7) and Australia (Chart 8). The moves in expectations are largest in countries experiencing stronger growth (the Euro Area and Canada), and more modest where growth is mixed (the U.K.) and where realized inflation is still very low (Australia). Yield curves have generally steepened in response to the reflationary rise in oil prices except for Canada, where the central bank has already delivered two surprise rate hikes over the summer and markets have priced in nearly three more hikes over the next year. Yet even there, global reflation will put steepening pressure on the Canadian yield curve without additional hawkishness from the Bank of Canada. Chart 5Oil Vs. The German Yield Curve Oil vs The German Yield Curve Oil vs The German Yield Curve Chart 6Oil Vs. The U.K. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.K. Yield Curve Oil vs The U.K. Yield Curve Chart 7Oil Vs. The Canada Yield Curve Oil vs The Canada Yield Curve Oil vs The Canada Yield Curve Chart 8Oil Vs. The Australia Yield Curve Oil vs The Australia Yield Curve Oil vs The Australia Yield Curve Japan, as always, remains the outlier to global trends. While oil prices have been rising even in yen terms, inflation expectations have remained subdued and the JGB yield curve has stayed flat (Chart 9). With the Bank of Japan targeting a 0% yield on the benchmark 10-year JGB as part of its current monetary policy framework, the link between energy prices, inflation expectations and the slope of the yield curve will remain broken in Japan. This makes JGBs a very low-beta government bond market, and we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan given our bias toward a defensive portfolio duration posture. Chart 9Oil Vs. The Japan Yield Curve Oil vs The Japan Yield Curve Oil vs The Japan Yield Curve Net-net, we see oil as continuing to provide a steepening, reflationary bias to global bond yields in the next few months, as the impact of the rise in energy prices feeds through into faster rates of headline inflation. How central banks respond will determine what curves do beyond that but, for now, the bias is towards steeper curves. Bottom Line: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. How Will The Trump Tax Plan Impact The Treasury Curve? Ask The Fed Another factor that will put steepening pressure on global yield curves, especially in the U.S., is the likelihood of the Trump fiscal stimulus coming to fruition. The White House has chosen to refocus its policy efforts on getting aggressive tax cuts implemented. This is low-hanging fruit for a president that needs a legislative victory after fighting a losing battle on health care reform. Last week, the latest Trump tax plan was unveiled, which is centered on delivering large cuts on corporate taxes, reducing the number of personal income tax brackets, eliminating many large tax deductions, allowing companies to fully expense investment spending at an accelerated rate, and introducing a territorial tax system that would exempt U.S. corporate taxes on the foreign earnings of U.S. companies. The Tax Policy Center unveiled its initial assessment of the Trump tax plan last Friday, which is expected to reduce U.S. federal tax revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years and another $3.2 trillion in the following decade.2 The White House is betting on so-called "dynamic scoring" of the tax plan to recoup some of that lost revenue via higher economic growth, although that is filled with unrealistic expectations to prevent an unwanted surge in federal deficits. More likely, the Trump plan would result in a major increase in federal budget deficits over the next decade, similar to the levels estimated by Moody's last year in its own analysis of the Trump fiscal platform.3 In Chart 10, we show how periods of widening federal budget deficits typically coincide with periods of U.S. Treasury curve steepening. Usually, this is merely the business cycle at work, with deficits widening during economic downturns as tax revenues plunge and counter-cyclical government expenditure increases. What is also at work is the monetary policy cycle, with the Fed delivering rate cuts during recessions when the output gap is widening and inflation pressures are diminishing, thus bull-steepening the yield curve. Chart 10Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Yet the current Trump tax proposal comes at a time when the U.S. economy is operating close to full employment with the output gap essentially closed (middle panel). This means that any impetus to U.S. economic growth from the fiscal easing can cause inflation pressures to build up in a manner different than typical periods of widening budget deficits. This should initially impart steepening pressures on the Treasury curve, but in a bearish fashion via higher longer-term inflation expectations. However, the eventual path for the Treasury curve will be determined by how much the Fed responds to the fiscal easing via tighter monetary policy. Typically, the slope of the Treasury curve is highly negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate (adjusted by headline inflation), with a higher real rate coinciding with a flatter curve and vice versa (bottom panel). Right now, the market is discounting only a modest rise in real U.S. policy rates, looking at the difference between forward Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates and forward CPI swap rates. That market-implied "real rate" is expected to stay in a modest range between 0% and 1% until well into the next decade. The Fed is also forecasting a rise in the real funds rate to 0.75%, but over a much faster time horizon - within two years - than the market. This is in the context of U.S. core inflation sustainably returning to the Fed's 2% target, which will allow the Fed to eventually raise rates to its current "terminal" rate projection of 2.75%. Thus, when simply eyeballing the relationship between real rates and the slope of the curve in Chart 10, the risk is that real rates will be higher than the market expects over time, and the Treasury curve will be flatter, all else equal. Yet when looking at the slope of the Treasury curve that is currently priced into the forwards, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart 10, a substantial flattening is already discounted over the next decade. Admittedly, the correlation between the real funds rate and the slope of the curve has changed over past decades, and the curve can likely be flatter for a lower level of real yields than in years past. Yet, even allowing for that, the market does seem to be discounting a very aggressive rise in real interest rates over the coming decade - one that is unlikely to be realized unless the Fed delivers a much higher path of interest rates then they are currently projecting. Which brings us back to the Trump fiscal stimulus. If the corporate tax cuts do provide a boost to economic growth next year via increased investment spending and hiring activity, in a way that also overheats the U.S. economy and boosts core inflation, then the Fed may be forced to raise rates at a faster pace than planned. This would result in a much flatter yield curve and would raise the risks of a recession in 2019, which is a scenario we think is highly plausible, especially if there is a change at the top of the FOMC. Late last week, it was revealed that President Trump had interviewed several candidates for the position of Fed Chair. Former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and current governor Jerome Powell were the names that caught the market's attention. Warsh has been a vocal critic of the Fed's slow unwind from the unusual post-crisis monetary policies, and is thus considered a monetary hawk who would want to raise rates higher, and faster, than the current FOMC. Powell is more pragmatic and would likely maintain the status quo at the Fed. The possibility of a more hawkish Fed chair has shown up in online prediction markets, where the "prices" of candidates that are perceived to be more hawkish (Warsh, John Taylor) rose while the prices of the more dovish candidates (Janet Yellen, Gary Cohn) fell (Chart 11). Right now, the online punters have Warsh in the lead, but the intraday "trading" has been volatile. The intersection of U.S. fiscal policy and monetary policy will be critical to determine the future path of U.S. bond yields over the next year. Right now, it appears that there is too much flattening priced into the Treasury curve relative to the expected path of the funds rate and inflation, as the Fed is unlikely to raise real rates much beyond their current projections. That could change if the Trump tax cuts can deliver a faster pace of productivity growth and higher equilibrium real interest rates. Although the post-war history of the U.S. shows that tax cuts by themselves do not raise the potential growth rate of the economy unless they lead to a major increase in investment spending, and even then the impact takes years to be seen (Chart 12). Chart 11Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Chart 12Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth For now, we think it makes more sense to bet against the substantial flattening in the forwards by positioning for a steeper Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Tapering: Steepening Yield Curves Through The Term Premium The other major factor that should steepen global yield curves in the next several months is the expectation of a change in policy from the ECB. The central bank has been gently preparing the market since the early summer for a shift to a less accommodative policy stance, in response to robust economic growth and slowly rising core inflation (Chart 13). A decision on the changes to the asset purchase program will take place at the October 26th ECB policy meeting. This will involve a reduction in the monthly pace of bond buying and, likely, some guidance as to when the asset purchase program will end. A change in short-term interest rates is highly unlikely before the bond purchases have been fully tapered, as this would go against the current forward guidance from the ECB that states that interest rates will remain at low levels well after the purchases have stopped. As we have discussed throughout this year, we see the ECB having no choice but to begin tapering its asset purchase program. The deflationary tail risks from 2014/15 have faded and, perhaps more importantly, the ECB is running into operational constraints on which bonds it can continue to buy. A likely outcome will be an announcement that the pace of bond buying will slow from the current €60bn/month to least ½ of that pace starting in January 2018. At mid-year, the policy will likely be reevaluated and, if the economy has not slowed materially and/or inflation rolled over, a full tapering of the bond buying would be announced, ending at the end of 2018 or in the first quarter of 2019. A rate hike would not take place until late 2019, which is where the market is currently priced. In the absence of rate hikes, most of the impact on Euro Area bond yields from the tapering will come from a widening of the term premium on longer-maturity bonds. If the pace of growth slows to zero, this could result in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield returning all the way back to 1% (bottom two panels). This would still be a very low yield by historical standards, in line with structurally lower growth rates and high government debt levels in Europe. But the path to that 1% yield would be very damaging for bond returns as Euro Area yield curves bear-steepen. While the link between our estimates of the term premiums in the major developed markets is not airtight, there has been a loose correlation between them during the post-crisis "quantitative easing" era (Chart 14). If recent history is any guide, a slower pace of ECB bond buying should coincide with steeper global yield curves, all else equal. All else is likely NOT equal, as an unruly response of risk assets and currency markets to a tapering could alter the likely path of growth and inflation expectations and, eventually, interest rates. But, at this moment, an ECB taper is more likely to result in steeper global yield curves. Chart 13An ECB Taper Will Result In##BR##Higher Term Premia In Europe... An ECB Taper Will Result In Higher Term Premia In Europe... An ECB Taper Will Result In Higher Term Premia In Europe... Chart 14...And Perhaps In Other##BR##Bond Markets, As Well ...And Perhaps In Other Bond Markets, As Well ...And Perhaps In Other Bond Markets, As Well Bottom Line: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Less Dovish Rhetoric Is Justified", dated September 26th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf 3 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf The Case For Steeper Yield Curves The Case For Steeper Yield Curves Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns