Geopolitics

Dear Client, This week's Global Investment Strategy Special Report is the first of a two-part series imagining a timeline of important economic and financial events spanning the next five years. This report covers the period from the present to the autumn of 2019. Next week's report will focus on the subsequent three years. We expect global growth to stay strong in 2018. Activity should slow in early 2019, culminating in a recession later that year, followed by a decade of stagflation in the 2020s. Historically, equity markets have led recessions by anywhere between three-to-twelve months. The scenario envisioned in this report sees stocks peaking in February 2019, but an earlier climax is possible. As such, we are likely to turn more cautious towards risk assets in the second half of next year. In addition to this week's report, we sent you our annual outlook on Monday, featuring a discussion between BCA editors and Mr. X, a long-standing client of the firm, as well as his daughter, Ms. X. My colleague, Caroline Miller, will be doing a webcast on the BCA 2018 outlook on Wednesday, November 29th. We hope that you will find these reports informative and stimulating. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature I. The Blow-Off Phase December 4, 2017: U.S. stocks fall by 1.7% on reports that Mitch McConnell does not have enough votes to get the tax bill through the Senate. A sell-off in high-yield markets and a tightening of financial conditions in China aggravate the situation. December 13, 2017: The Fed hikes rates by 25 basis points, taking the Fed funds target range to 1.25%-to-1.5%. December 14, 2017: Global equities continue to weaken. The S&P 500 suffers its first 5% correction since June 2016. December 15, 2017: The correction ends on news that the Senate will consider a revised bill which trims the size of corporate tax cuts and uses the savings to finance a temporary reduction in payroll taxes. President Trump and House leaders promise to go along with the proposal. The PBoC also injects fresh liquidity into the Chinese financial system. December 29, 2017: Global equities rally into year-end. The S&P 500 hits 2571 on December 29, placing it just shy of its November high. The dollar also strengthens, with EUR/USD closing at 1.162. The 10-year Treasury yield finishes the year at 2.42%. January 10, 2018: The global cyclical bull market in stocks continues. European and Japanese indices power higher. Both the NASDAQ and the S&P 500 hit fresh record highs. EM stocks move up but lag their DM peers, weighed down by a stronger dollar. January 12, 2018: U.S. retail sales surprise on the upside. Department store stocks, having been written off for dead just a few months earlier, end up rising by an average of 40% between November 2017 and the end of January. February 14, 2018: The euro area economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. Nevertheless, inflation stays muted due to high levels of spare capacity across most of the region and the lagged effects of a stronger euro. The 2-year OIS spread between the U.S. and the euro area widens to a multi-year high. February 26, 2018: China's construction sector cools a notch, but industrial activity remains robust, spurred on by a cheap currency, strong global growth, and rising producer prices. Chinese H-shares rise 13% year-to-date, beating out most other EM equity indices. March 14, 2018: The U.S., Canada, and Mexico reach a last-minute deal to preserve NAFTA. The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso breathe a sigh of relief. March 16, 2018: In a surprise decision, Donald Trump nominates Kevin Hassett as Fed vice-chair. Trump cites the "tremendous job" Hassett did in selling the GOP's tax cuts. A number of Fed appointments follow. Most of the picks turn out to be more hawkish than investors had expected. This gives the greenback further support. March 18, 2018: Pro-EU parties do better than anticipated in the Italian elections. Italian bond spreads compress versus the rest of Europe. March 21, 2018: The Fed raises rates again, bringing the fed funds target range up to 1.50%-to-1.75%. April 8, 2018: Bank of Japan governor Kuroda is granted another term in office. He pledges to remain single-mindedly focused on eradicating deflation. April 11, 2018: Chinese core CPI inflation reaches 2.9%. Producer price inflation stays elevated at 6%. A major market theme in 2018 turns out to be how China went from being a source of global deflationary pressures to a source of inflationary ones. April 30, 2018: U.S. core PCE inflation jumps 0.3% in March, reaching 1.7% on a year-over-year basis. Goods and service inflation both pick up, while the base effects from lower cell phone data charges in the prior year drop out of the calculations. May 17, 2018: Oil prices continue to rise on the back of ongoing discipline from OPEC and Russia, smaller-than-expected shale output growth, and production disruptions in Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela. June 13, 2018: Strong U.S. growth in the first half of the year, a larger-than-projected decline in the unemployment rate, and higher inflation keep the Fed in tightening mode. The FOMC hikes rates again. June 25, 2018: Global capital spending accelerates further. Global industrial stocks go on to have a banner year. June 27, 2018: Wage growth in the U.S. accelerates to a cycle high. Donald Trump takes credit, stating that "this wouldn't have happened" without him or his tax cuts. July 31, 2018: The Japanese labor market tightens further. The unemployment rate falls to 2.6%, 1.2 percentage points below 2007 levels, while the ratio of job vacancies-to-applicants moves further above its early-1990s bubble high. A number of high-profile companies announce plans to raise wages. August 2, 2018: A brief summer sell-off sees global equities dip temporarily, but strong global earnings growth keeps the cyclical bull market in stocks intact. August 28, 2018: The London housing market continues to weaken, with home prices falling by 9% from their peak. The rest of the U.K. economy remains fairly resilient, however. EUR/GBP closes at 0.87. August 31, 2018: The Greek bailout program ends and a new one begins. Greece's economy continues to recover, but Tsipras fails to obtain debt relief from creditors. September 7, 2018: The U.S. unemployment rate falls to a 49-year low of 3.7%, nearly a full percentage below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. September 26, 2018: The Fed raises rates again. By now, the market has gone from pricing in only two hikes for 2018 at the start of the year to pricing in almost four. September 27, 2018: Profit growth in the U.S. moderates somewhat as higher wage costs take a bite out of earnings. Nevertheless, stock market sentiment remains buoyant. Retail participation, which had been dormant for years, takes off. CNBC sees a surge in viewers. Micro cap stocks go wild. October 7, 2018: The outcome of Brazil's elections shows little appetite for major structural reforms. Economic populism lives on. October 31, 2018: Realized inflation and inflation expectations continue grinding higher in Japan, triggering market speculation that the BoJ will abandon its yield-curve targeting policy. The resulting rally in the yen is short-lived, however. At its monetary policy meeting, the Bank of Japan indicates that it has no near-term plans to modify its existing strategy. November 6, 2018: The Democrats narrowly regain control of the House but fail to recapture the Senate. Investors shrug off the results, figuring correctly that a Republican Senate will keep Trump's corporate tax cuts in place and that Democrats will agree to extend the expiring payroll tax cut and other tax measures that benefit the middle class. December 7, 2018: The U.S. unemployment rate falls to 3.5%. Donald Trump tweets "You're welcome, America". December 19, 2018: The Fed raises rates for the fourth time that year - one more hike than it had signaled in its December 2017 "dot plot" - taking the fed funds target range to 2.25%-2.5%. December 31, 2018: The MSCI All-Country Index finishes up 12% for the year (in local-currency terms), led by the euro area and Japan. U.S. stocks gain 8%. EM equities manage to rise 6%. Small caps edge out large caps, value stocks beat growth stocks, and cyclical stocks outperform defensives. December 31, 2018: The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield finishes the year at 3.05%. German bund yields reach 0.82%, U.K. gilt yields rise to 1.7%, Canadian yields hit 2.3%, and Australian yields back up to 3%. Japanese 10-year yields remain broadly flat, but the 20-year yield moves up 40 basis points to nearly 1%. Credit spreads finish the year close to where they started, providing a modest carry pick-up over high-quality government bonds. December 31, 2018: The DXY index rises 4% to 98. EUR/USD closes at 1.11, USD/JPY at 123, GBP/USD at 1.31, and AUD/USD at 0.76. The Canadian dollar manages to edge up against the greenback on the year, with CAD/USD finishing at 0.81. The Chinese yuan also strengthens to 6.4 versus the dollar. December 31, 2018: Brent and WTI spot prices finish the year at $65 and $63, respectively. Copper and metal prices are broadly flat for the year, having faced the dueling forces of a stronger dollar (a negative) and above-trend global growth (a positive). Gold sinks to $1,226. II. The Clouds Darken February 22, 2019: The global economy starts to decelerate. The slowdown is led by China, where the government's crackdown on shadow banking activities begins to take a bigger toll on growth. Most measures of U.S. economic activity also soften somewhat in the first two months of the year. Investors take heart in the hope that the economy will achieve a soft landing, allowing the Fed to moderate the pace of rate hikes. February 27, 2019: In an otherwise mundane day, the S&P 500 edges up 0.3% to 2832. Little do investors know that this marks the cyclical peak in the U.S. stock market. March 13, 2019: Hopes that the Fed can take its foot off the brake are dashed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that inflation rose by more than expected in February. U.S. core CPI inflation increases to 2.9% while the core PCE deflator accelerates to 2.4%. Market chatter turns from whether the Fed can slow the pace of rate hikes to whether it needs to start hiking more rapidly than once-per-quarter. The S&P falls 2.1% on the day. March 20, 2019: The Fed lifts the funds rate target range to 2.5%-to-2.75% and signals a readiness to keep hiking rates. The 10-year Treasury yield rises to 3.3%. EUR/USD sinks to 1.08. The first quarter of 2019 marks a watershed of sorts. In 2018, the Fed raised rates because of stronger growth; in 2019, it kept raising them because of brewing inflation. As it turned out, risk assets were able to tolerate the former, but not the latter. March 29, 2019: The U.K. does not leave the EU two years after Britain invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The EU votes to prolong negotiations given growing political support within Britain for the country to remain part of the European bloc. April 5, 2019: The S&P 500 sinks further and is now 10% below its February high, returning close to where it was at the start of 2018. The increasingly sour mood on Wall Street does not appear to be hurting Main Street very much, however. The U.S. unemployment rate edges down further to 3.4%. Euro area growth remains resilient. May 31, 2019: The Brazilian government announces that the fiscal deficit will come in larger than originally expected. USD/BRL slips to 3.45. June 4, 2019: Jens Weidmann, who had gone out of his way to soften his hawkish rhetoric over the preceding months, is chosen to succeed Mario Draghi, whose term expires in October. Nevertheless, the euro still strengthens on the news. June 6, 2019: Markets temporarily regain their composure. The S&P 500 gets back to within 4% of its all-time high. The reprieve does not last long, however. June 12, 2019: The Fed hikes rates, taking the fed funds target range to 2.75%-to-3%. The FOMC cites inflation as its primary concern. July 8, 2019: Global risk assets weaken anew as a fiscal crisis grips Brazil. Turkey, South Africa, and a number of other emerging markets show increasing signs of fragility. August 20, 2019: Korean exports, a leading indicator of the global business cycle, decelerate once again. Global PMIs sag, as do most measures of business confidence. September 25, 2019: Despite a slowing U.S. economy, the Fed hikes rates again, bringing the fed funds target range to 3%-to-3.25%. The FOMC justifies the decision based on the fact that the unemployment rate is below NAIRU, core inflation is above the Fed's 2% target, and real rates are less than 1%. To assuage markets, Jay Powell suggests that the Fed could keep rates on hold in December. This turns out to be more prescient than he realizes. It will be another three years before the Fed raises rates again. By then, Powell is no longer the Fed chair. September 30, 2019: Commodity prices tumble, further adding to the pressure facing emerging markets. The U.S. yield curve inverts for the first time during this business cycle. The dollar, which previously strengthened due to a hawkish Fed, now starts strengthening on flight-to-safety flows back into the U.S. The yen appreciates even more than the greenback. October 15, 2019: The bottom falls out of the Canadian housing market. Home sales dry up and prices begin to sink. The Canadian dollar, which peaked back in February at 83 cents, falls to 74 cents against the U.S. dollar. October 19, 2019: A failed North Korean launch lands a missile 80 kilometres from Japanese shores. Prime Minister Abe pledges swift retaliation. October 21, 2019: The negative feedback loop between a rising dollar, falling commodity prices, and EM stress intensifies. Sentiment towards emerging markets deteriorates dramatically. Rumours begin to swirl that Brazil will miss a debt payment. October 23, 2019: Trump tweets "Dopey Rocketman thinks he is so smart, but we know where all his hideouts are. Sweet dreams!" October 24, 2019: News reports are abuzz about a massive buildup of troops on the North Korean side of the border. Panic grips Seoul. Asian bourses sell-off, taking global stock markets down with them. III. The Reckoning October 25, 2019: All hell breaks loose ... To be continued next week. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Overstated geopolitical risks in 2017 are giving way to understated risks in 2018; The reshuffle of China's government raises policy headwinds for global growth and EM assets; U.S. politics will be roiled by a leftward turn and Trump's protectionism and foreign policy; Italian politics, more than German, is the chief threat to European risk assets; Volatility and the USD will rise; shift to neutral on European risk assets; close tactical long on Chinese Big Banks. Feature BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has operated this year on a high conviction view that geopolitical risks would be overstated, thus generating considerable upside for risk assets. Our analysis focused on three particular "red herrings": European populism, U.S. politics, and Brexit.1 Meanwhile we identified North Korea as a genuine geopolitical risk, though not one that would cause us to change our "risk on" outlook. We therefore take issue - and perhaps offense - with the contemporary narrative that "geopolitics did not matter" in a year when the S&P 500 rose by 15% and VIX plumbed historic lows (Chart 1). Stocks rose and the VIX stayed muted precisely because geopolitical risks were overstated earlier in the year. Investors who correctly assessed the balance of geopolitical risks and opportunities would have known to "buy in May and enjoy your day."2 At the same time that we encouraged investors to load up on risk this year, we cautioned that 2018 would be a challenging year.3 Three themes are now coming into focus as 2017 draws to a close: Politics has become a headwind to growth in China as Beijing intensifies deleveraging and structural reforms; U.S. fiscal and monetary policy favor the USD, which will reignite trade protectionism from Washington D.C.; Italian elections may reignite Euro Area breakup risk. In this report, we update our view on these three risks. Data out of China are particularly concerning: broad money (M3) growth has decelerated sharply with negative implications for the economy (Chart 2).4 M3 is at last ticking up but the consequences of its steep drop have not yet translated to the economy. Our message to clients since 2016 has been that the nineteenth Party Congress would mark a turning point in President Xi Jinping's tenure, that he would see his political capital replenished, and that Beijing's pain threshold would therefore rise appreciably in 2018. Hence we do not expect any new stimulus to be quick in coming or very large. Chart 1Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Chart 2China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown What happens in China will not stay in China. Signs of cracks are emerging in the buoyant global growth narrative (Chart 3), with potentially serious consequences for emerging markets (EM) (Chart 4).5 Chart 3Signs Of Cracks Forming Signs Of Cracks Forming Signs Of Cracks Forming Chart 4EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over China: Ramping Up For The New Year Crackdown The aftermath of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress is unfolding largely as we expected: with a reboot of President Xi Jinping's reform agenda. Chinese economic data are starting to reflect the consequences of tighter policy since late last year (Chart 5), and BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown consumer-oriented sectors outperforming industrials and materials since the party congress, as the reform drive would have one expect.6 China's policymakers have already allowed the monetary impulse - the rate of growth in the supply of money - to slow to the lowest levels in recent memory. This bodes ill for Chinese imports and base metal prices (Chart 6), as BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has emphasized.7 Chart 5Expect More Disappointments From China Expect More Disappointments From China Expect More Disappointments From China Chart 6Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk It is true that policymakers will re-stimulate the economy when they reach their pain threshold, but with Xi Jinping's political capital replenished and the party and state unified under him, we expect that threshold to have moved higher than financial markets expect. Yes, the government will try to prevent its policies from being highly disruptive and destabilizing - as with the People's Bank of China injecting liquidity to ease rapidly rising bond yields (Chart 7) - but the bottom line is that it is pressing forward with tightening. How can we be so sure that this policy trajectory is set? The initiatives in the early stages of implementation after the congress confirm our view that the central government is hardening the line on several key economic-political fronts: Financial regulatory overhaul: People's Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan has made a series of dire comments about China's financial risks and the danger that it is reaching a "Minsky Moment," or accumulation of risks that will end in a catastrophe.8 Zhou's likeliest replacements are both financial reformers, and one of them, Guo Shuqing, is the hawkish regulator who has led the crackdown on shadow lending this year (Chart 8). Moreover, whoever heads the central bank will have the benefit of new financial oversight capabilities. The Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), a new entity charged with coordinating the country's various financial regulatory agencies, has just held its first meeting. Its inaugural chairman, Vice-Premier Ma Kai, is likely to retire soon, but rumors are swirling that his replacement will be Liu He, President Xi's top economic thinker and a reformist, who wrote an ominous article about excessive leverage in the People's Daily in May 2016 and has now made it onto the Politburo. If Liu He takes charge, given his very close relationship with Xi, the FSDC will be irresistible. If not, the FSDC will still be effective, judging by the fact that Ma Kai's replacement will likely be someone, like Ma, who sits on both the Politburo and State Council. Chart 7China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply Chart 8Shadow Banking Has Peaked Shadow Banking Has Peaked Shadow Banking Has Peaked Local government crackdown: Local government officials in two cities in Inner Mongolia have canceled urban metro projects due to excessive debt, reportedly under orders from the central government. Other cities in other provinces have suggested that approvals for such projects are being delayed.9 In other words, the central government is no longer endlessly accommodating debt-financed local government projects, even projects that support priority goals like urbanization and interior development. This news, so soon after the party congress, is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, which suggests that local government spending cannot be assumed to shake off its weakening trend anytime soon (Chart 9). Top officials pointed out local government leverage as a systemic risk, along with shadow banking, at the National Financial Work Conference in July, and both the outgoing finance minister and the outgoing central bank chief have called for reining in local governments. The latter's comments were formally endorsed by being included in the Communist Party's official "party congress study guide," suggesting that they are more than just the parting advice of a soon-to-be retiree. Property tightening: China's real estate sector, which provides 22% of investment in the country, is feeling the squeeze from financial tightening and targeted measures to drive out speculation since October 2016 (Chart 10). More, not less, of a squeeze is expected in both the short and long term. In the short term, inspections of commercial housing for corruption and speculative excesses could exert an additional dampening effect. In the medium and long term, the Xi administration plans to roll out a nationwide property tax, according to Huang Qifan, an economic policymaker tied to the legislature, "in the near future, not ... 10-20 years. It could happen in the next several years."10 The tax was delayed in 2016 amid economic turmoil. A national property tax would be an important fiscal reform that would tamp down on the asset bubble, rebalance the growth model, and enable the government to redistribute wealth from multiple homeowners to lower income groups. Chart 9Local Government Spending Is Weak Local Government Spending Is Weak Local Government Spending Is Weak Chart 10Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Industrial restructuring: Environmental curbs on outdated and excess industrial capacity are continuing. Although China aggressively cut overcapacity in coal, steel and other sub-sectors over the past twelve months, it continues to face larger overcapacity than other economies (Chart 11), particularly in glass, cement, chemical fertilizers, electricity generation and home construction. It is also possible that SOE restructuring will become more aggressive. Currently, SOEs listed on the Shanghai exchange are rallying relative to the A-share market, as they have tended to do when the Communist Party reaffirms its backing of the state sector (Chart 12). However, announcements of SOE reforms in this administration have also triggered phases of under-performance. SOEs targeted for reforms face greater scrutiny of their finances and operations.11 Moreover, any SOE is vulnerable to the new wave of the anti-corruption campaign.12 National Supervision Commission: The new anti-corruption czar, Zhao Leji, will be a very influential figure if he is even to hold a candle to his predecessor, Wang Qishan. Zhao is to oversee the creation of a nationwide anti-corruption system that targets not only the Communist Party, as before, but every public official. The new commission will have branches at each level of administration (city, province, central government) and will combine the various existing anti-corruption agencies under one head. The purpose is not merely to root out political enemies (as administration critics, with some justice, would argue) but also to improve the effectiveness of policy implementation and address public grievances that threaten to undermine the regime. The latest environmental curbs have shown that employing anti-corruption teams to help enforce broader economic policy can be highly effective. Xi and Zhao Leji look set to extend this practice to state ministries, including financial regulators.13 It is not clear whether they will succeed in rebuilding the regime's legitimacy in public eyes, but in the short term an initiative like this should send a chilling effect throughout the state bureaucracy, similar to that which occurred among local government party chiefs in 2014 after the initial anti-corruption campaign was launched.14 Chart 11Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Chart 12SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms In short, preparations are under way for Xi's second five-year term in office. (Perhaps not his last term, as the party congress also made clear.)15 New agencies and personnel suggest that the administration is embarking on an intensification of policy tightening. Tougher policy is viewed as necessary, not optional: top leadership has repeatedly stated that a lack of action on systemic threats will lead to regime-threatening crises down the road.16 Chart 13China's Impact On Global Growth Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks How will this agenda impact the rest of the world? Our colleagues at China Investment Strategy hold that China may step up reforms but will not do so in a way that will negatively impact China's imports or key assets like base metal prices.17 However, from a political perspective, we view the combination of Xi's political capital with the new financial and anti-corruption commissions as likely to increase policy effectiveness to an extent that causes banks to lend less eagerly and local governments and SOEs to err on the side of less borrowing and spending. This will reduce demand for imports and commodities and will also raise the tail-risk of excessive tightening. China's contribution to global growth had fallen over the years, but has recently rebounded on the back of stimulus in 2015-16 (Chart 13). As such, it will not take much of a drag on import growth in 2018 to have a global impact. The most exposed commodity exporters to China (outside of oil) are Brazil, Chile and Peru (with Indonesia and South Africa also at risk), while the most exposed exporters of capital goods are Taiwan and South Korea, followed by Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand). Looking at the China-exposed countries whose stocks rallied the most while China stimulated in 2016, the prime candidates for a negative impact in 2018 will be Brazil and Peru, and less so Hungary and Thailand. Bottom Line: The Xi administration is rebooting its reform agenda and has a higher tolerance for pain than the market yet realizes. Centralization, deleveraging and industrial restructuring have been deemed necessary to secure the long-term stability of the regime. China's policy risks are understated and the next wave of stimulus will not be as rapidly forthcoming as financial markets expect. U.S.: Trouble In (GOP) Paradise Markets have rallied throughout the year despite a lack of policy initiatives from the U.S. Congress. Judging by the performance of highly taxed S&P 500 equities, the rally this year has not been about the prospects of tax reform (Chart 14).18 Rather, markets have responded to strong earnings data and a lack of policy initiatives. Wait, what? Yes, markets have rallied because nothing has been accomplished. Investors just want President Trump and the Republican-held Congress to maintain a pro-business regulatory stance (Chart 15) and not do anything anti-corporate. Doing nothing is just fine. Chart 14Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Chart 15Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Here Come The Socialists Dems The Democratic Party leads the 2018 generic Congressional vote polling by 10.8%, up from 5.9% in May (Chart 16). The generic ballot polling is notoriously unreliable as most U.S. electoral districts are politically designed to be safe seats - "gerrymandered" - and as such are unlikely to respond to nation-wide polling (Chart 17). However, Republican support has fallen and Democratic candidates have performed extremely well this year. Chart 16U.S. Public Leans Democratic U.S. Public Leans Democratic U.S. Public Leans Democratic Chart 17Electoral System Reduces Competition Electoral System Reduces Competition Electoral System Reduces Competition First, candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey have outperformed their polling in November elections. Second, in the four special elections this summer, Democrats narrowed Republican leads by 18%. If the electoral results from Table 1 are replicated in 2018, Republicans could face a massacre in the House of Representatives. In addition, Republicans are suddenly vulnerable in Alabama, where the anti-establishment Senate candidate, and Breitbart-endorsee, Roy Moore is struggling with accusations of pedophilia (Chart 18). Table 12017 Special Elections Are Ominous For The GOP Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Chart 18Republican Senate Majority May Lose A Seat Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Why should investors fear a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives? Yes, the odds of impeachment proceedings against President Trump would rise, but we are on record saying that investors should fade any impeachment risk to assets.19 The greater risk is that the Democratic Party has turned firmly to the left with its new manifesto, "A Better Deal." A strong performance by unusually left-of-center Democratic candidates could spook financial markets that have been lulled into complacency by the lack of genuine populism from the (thus far) pluto-populist president. Protectionism While most investors are focused on the ongoing NAFTA negotiations - which we addressed in last week's Special Report20 - we would draw attention again to the shift towards protectionism by the Republicans in the Senate. Normally a bastion of pro-business free-traders, the Senate has turned to the left on free trade. Senator John Cornyn (R, Texas) has introduced a bill to make significant reforms to the process by which the United States reviews foreign investments for national security, led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Two further bills, one in the House and another in the Senate, would also significantly tighten access to the U.S. by foreign investors. China is foremost in their sights. In early 2018, investors will also be greeted by two significant decisions. First, on tariffs: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. The International Trade Commission has already determined that imports of these goods can cause material injury to U.S. industries, so Trump merely has to decide whether to impose tariffs (likely from 35% to 50%), import quotas (which have never received limits from courts), or bilaterally negotiated export limitations from trade partners.21 The consequences would go beyond the current, country-specific tariffs on these items, setting a precedent that would expose a wide range of similar imports to punitive action, and more broadly would signal to the world that the U.S.'s protectionist turn under Trump is real.22 Second, the White House has allegedly completed a comprehensive review of China policy under way since June.23 The review is said to focus on economic rather than strategic matters and to call for the use of punitive measures to insist that China alter tactics long complained about by the United States, including intellectual property theft, export subsidies, and forced tech transfer from joint ventures in China. Already the U.S. is investigating China for intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, with results that could prompt tariffs no later than August 2018.24 As if on cue, Wang Yang, a new inductee on China's Politburo Standing Committee and a prominent reformer, wrote an editorial in the People's Daily declaring that China should protect intellectual property, not require tech transfers, and give foreign firms equal treatment under the "Made in China 2025" plan.25 China has made similar promises and the U.S. has made similar threats many times before, so decisions in the coming months will be telling. Ultimately we fear that President Trump may feel compelled to ratchet up protectionism in 2018 for two reasons. First, Americans within his populist base will grow restless as they do the math on the tax legislation and realize that their champion is not quite the populist they voted for. Trump will need to re-convince them of his protectionist credentials and independence from Washington elites and the policy status quo. Second, if our view on Chinese slowdown and American fiscal thrust is correct, the USD bull market should restart in 2018. This would hurt U.S. export competitiveness, expand the trade deficit, and motivate U.S. companies to invest abroad, a paradox of President Trump's tax and fiscal policy. The White House may, therefore, be compelled to reach for mercantilist solutions to an FX problem. Foreign Policy The final reason to worry is a "Lame Duck" presidency. Far more predictable presidents sought relevancy abroad late in their mandate. For example, President George H. W. Bush committed troops to Somalia on his way out of the White House. President Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia. Given Trump's dismal approval polling and a potentially historic "wave" election for the Democrats in November, President Trump could similarly shift focus to geopolitics. If that shift includes confronting regional powers like China (and/or North Korea), or Iran, risk premiums may rise. In the meantime, we expect tax cuts to pass. The going is getting tougher in the Senate. The decision to include the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate - designed to cut another $300 billion in government spending over the next ten years - will make it more difficult to secure 51 Senate votes. We maintain our view that the final legislation may need until Q1 to pass. Between now and then, legislators may need a failure or two in order to realize that the clock is ticking toward the midterms. Bottom Line: Markets have cheered lack of action from the Congress. However, the going will get tougher in 2018 as investors fret about protectionism, President Trump's itch to remain relevant, and a potential takeover of the House by the most left-of-center Democratic Party in a generation. Europe: Germany Is A Passing Risk, Focus On Italy The collapse of coalition talks in Germany is not a structural concern for Europe. The breakdown in the negotiations occurred because of the immigration debate, in which the right-of-center Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) struck out a different position from the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the liberal Green Party. Of course, the disagreement is not about immigration today, given that inflows of asylum seekers this year has been well below past flows (Chart 19A). Rather, the fundamental disagreement is over how the CDU and its leader Angela Merkel handled the 2015 migration crisis and how it will be handled in the future. Chart 19ANo Immigration Crisis Today No Immigration Crisis Today No Immigration Crisis Today Chart 19BGermans Love Europe Germans Love Europe Germans Love Europe For investors, what matters is that there is no substantive disagreement over the EU, European integration, or Germany's role in it. The mildly euroskeptic FDP did not draw any red lines. The reason is obvious: the German euroskeptic constituency is small, shrinking, and largely already captured by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) anti-establishment party (Chart 19B). Germans are objectively the most europhile people in Europe. Going forward, a new election would cause further political uncertainty. On the margin, it could cause business confidence to stall. However, Germany runs a 14 billion euro budget surplus and is not expected to launch any structural reforms or fundamental economic changes. As such, if the formation of a government is delayed by three-to-six months, the economic implications will be fleeting. In fact, the result of a new election could be a Grand Coalition between the CDU and Socialists, which would be positive for European integration. However, as we have argued before, hopes for a significant restart of integration have probably run ahead of reality.26 For us, Italy is the immediate concern. Italy passed a new electoral law in late October, setting the stage for the election due by May 2018. The consensus in the news media is that the president will call elections in January, with the vote taking place sometime in March.27 The consensus is that the new law will make it more difficult for the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) to win a majority of seats in the Italian Parliament. In addition, it will give a lift to the parties with strong regional ties - such as the governing Democratic Party (PD) and Lega Nord. Chart 20Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Italy Set For A Hung Parliament The nuances of the new law are largely irrelevant, however, given the close polling of the three electoral blocs. The most likely outcome will be a hung parliament (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we can still learn something from the law: the Italian establishment parties are cooperating to subvert the electoral chances of M5S. The ruling PD and the center-right Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are working together to design an electoral system that favors the pre-election norm of coalition-building and parties with strong regional representation. Neither of these factors fits M5S's profile. This suggests that the two centrist blocs will be able to put together an establishment coalition following the election. On one hand, this will give stability to the Euro Area for at least the duration of that government. On the other hand, the underlying data continues to point to structural euroskepticism in Italy. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 55% (Chart 21). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 22). These are ominous signs for the future. Still, both M5S and the mildly euroskeptic Lega Nord have tempered their demands for an exit from the common currency union. The official stance of the M5S is that the exit from the Euro Area is only "option B," that is, an option if the bloc is not reformed. Meanwhile, Lega Nord is on record opposing a referendum on membership in the currency union because it is illegal.28 Chart 21Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 22Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU The stance of Italy's euroskeptics will change as soon as it is convenient. The country's establishment is likely making a mistake by contemplating a grand coalition alliance. Unless such a government develops a serious plan for painful structural reforms - it will not - it will likely waste its mandate and fall at the first sign of recession or crisis. At that point, the only alternative will be the M5S, which will stand alone in opposition to such an ineffective government. Investors can therefore breathe a sigh of relief in the medium term. Italy will likely not be a source of risk-off in 2018 or even 2019, although it is still the main risk in Europe for next year and bears monitoring. However, in the long term, we maintain that Italy will be a catalyst for a serious global risk-off episode within the next five years. We remain optimistic that such a crisis will ultimately strengthen Italy's commitment to the Euro Area, as we outlined in a recent Special Report.29 But that is a low conviction view that will require constant monitoring. Could there be another scenario? Several clients have asked us if an Emmanuel Macron could emerge in Italy? Our answer is that there already was an Emmanuel Macron: Matteo Renzi, the former prime minister and current PD leader, was Macron before Macron. And yet he failed to enact significant structural and constitutional reforms. Yet two potential candidates may be ready to swoop in from the "radical center" position that Renzi and Macron characterize. The first is ECB President Mario Draghi. He is widely respected in Italy and is seen as someone who not only allayed the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, but also stood up to German monetarist demands in doing so. The second is Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, one of the world's most recognizable business leaders and a media star inside and outside Italy. If the centrist coalition begins to fray by the end of 2019, both of these individuals may be available to launch a star-studded campaign to "save Italy." Bottom Line: We remain cautiously optimistic about the upcoming Italian elections. While our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a euroskeptic one, nevertheless risks abound and require monitoring. Investment Implications There are a lot of unknowns heading into 2018. What will become of U.S. tax cuts? How deep will the policy-induced slowdown become in China? What will President Trump do if he becomes the earliest "Lame Duck" president in recent U.S. history? Will he embark on military or protectionist adventures abroad? Asset implications are unclear, but we offer several broad takeaways. First, the VIX will not stay low in 2018. Second, the USD should rally. Both should happen because investors are far too complacent about the Fed's pace of hikes and because of potential global growth disappointments as Beijing tinkers with the financial and industrial sectors. Chart 23AEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Chart 23BEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Third, it is time to close our recommendation to be overweight European risk assets. European equities have a higher beta to global growth due to the continent's link to Chinese demand. As our colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, when Chinese investment slows, Europe feels it more acutely than the U.S. (Chart 23). Chart 24U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback We are also closing our tactical long position on China's big banks versus its small-to-medium-sized banks. This position has been stopped out at a loss of 5%, despite the riskier profile of the latter banks and the fact that their non-performing loans are rising. Faced with these challenges, Beijing decided to open the door to foreign investment and too ease regulations on these banks so that they can lend to small cap companies as part of the reform drive. These actions inspired a rally relative to the Big Banks that worked against our trade. As financial tightening will continue, however, we expect this rally to be short-lived, and for big banks to benefit from state backing. Our highest conviction view is that it is time to short emerging markets. Our two core views - that politics will become a tailwind to growth in the U.S. and a headwind to growth in China - should create a policy mix that will act as a headwind to EM (Chart 24). The year 2017 may therefore turn out to have been an anomaly. Emerging markets outperformed as China aggressively stimulated in 2016 and as both the U.S. dollar and bond yields declined. This mix of global fiscal and liquidity conditions proved to be a boon for EM, giving it a liquidity-driven year to remember. That year is now coming to an end. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 China's official broad money (M2) measure has also sharply decelerated, as have all measures of China's money. We prefer BCA's Emerging Market Strategy's broader M3 measure. The official M2 has underestimated the amount of new money in China because banks and shadow banks have done extensive off balance sheet lending. The M3 measure includes bank liabilities excluded from M2, it is calculated by taking the total of non-financial institution and household deposits, plus other financial corporation deposits, and other liabilities. Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Temporary Short-Term Risks," dated November 10, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Cracks Are Appearing," dated November 15, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Zhou's comments should not be interpreted merely as a farewell speech of a retiring central bank governor, since they echo the general policy shift in the administration since December 2016's Central Economic Work Conference, and April 2016's Politburo meeting, toward tackling financial risk. For Zhou's comments, please see "China's central bank chief lays out plans to avert future financial crisis," South China Morning Post, November 4, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 9 Xianyang in Shaanxi, and Wuhan in Hubei. Please see Wu Hongyuran and Han Wei, "Another City Halts Subway Projects Amid Financing Concerns," Caixin, November 13, 2017, available at www.caixinglobal.com. 10 Please see Kevin Yao, "China central bank adviser expects less forceful deleveraging in 2018," Reuters, November 15, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 11 The latest official announcement claims that an additional 31 SOEs will be listed for restructuring. Please see "More SOEs to be included in reform plan," People's Daily, November 16, 2017, available at en.people.cn. 12 We fully expect SOEs to be subjected to rigorous treatment from the National Supervision Commission. Note that the crackdown on overseas investment earlier this year merely touches the tip of the iceberg in terms of the SOE corruption that could be revealed by probes. See, for example, the following report on the National Audit Office's public notice on SOE fraud and irregularities, "20 Central Enterprises Overseas Investment Audit Revealed A Lot Of Problems," Pengpai News (Shanghai), June 26, 2017, available at news.163.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, and "Legacies Of 2014," dated December 17, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Xi Jinping has called financial security an important part of national security and declared that "safeguarding financial security is a strategic and fundamental task in the economic and social development of our country." Please see Wang Yanfei, "Leaders aim to fend off financial risks," China Daily, April 26, 2017, available at www.chinadailyasia.com. For Zhao Leji's post-congress comments on this topic in the People's Daily, please see "China faces historic corruption battle, new graft buster says," The Guardian, November 11, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 17 See footnote 6. 18 More anecdotally, a clear majority of our clients disagrees with our bullish prospects of tax cuts. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see Chad P. Bown, "Donald Trump Now Has The Excuse He Needs To Open The Floodgates Of Protectionism," Peterson Institute of International Economics, October 9, 2017, available at piie.com. 22 Other measures could follow thereafter. For instance, the Commerce Department will issue its final report on steel and aluminum in January and Trump could decide to take punitive actions on these goods under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Please see Ana Swanson, "Democrats Pressure Trump to Fulfill Promise to Impose Steel Tariffs," New York Times, October 26, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 23 The review itself began in June, around the time when Trump's and Xi's initial "100-day plan" to improve trade relations expired. The report that the review is completed is from Lingling Wei et al, "Beyond Trump-Xi Bond, White House Looks to Toughen China Policy," Fox Business News, November 19, 2017, available at www.foxbusiness.com. See also Adam Behsudi et al, "White House conducting wide-ranging review of China policy," Politico, September 28, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 24 The U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is supposed to finish his investigation into intellectual property under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act within a year of August 18, 2017. Please see Gary M. Hnath and Jing Zhang, "Trump Administration Initiates Section 301 Investigation of China's Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Innovation," dated August 25, 2017, available at www.lexology.com. 25 Please see "Chinese vice premier pledges fair treatment of foreign firms as China opens up," Reuters, November 10, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Just in time to get a new government in place ahead of the World Cup! Oh wait... Too soon? 28 Which is an odd position to take given their supposed anti-establishment orientation. For example, the U.K. referendum on EU membership was non-binding, and yet it took place and had relatively binding political consequences. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market An Impressive Bull Market An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts Regime Shifts Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money An Extraordinary Period of Easy Money An Extraordinary Period of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps No More Output Gaps No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Differing Perspectives of Inflation Differing Perspectives of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here Not Much Inflation Here Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning Inflationary Pressures Are Turning Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Financial Leverage Has Risen Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Debt Levels Remain Elevated Debt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Low Rates Have Not Triggered A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Low Rates Have Not Triggered A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Borrowing Costs Are Benign Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt With These Structural Headwinds It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend Global Activity On An Uptrend Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Trends In U.S. Growth Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery A Weak Housing Recovery A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth No Clear Winner On Growth No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? A Turning Point For Italian Banks? A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind China Leaves Deflation Behind China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over Emerging Economy Growth: The Boom Years Are Over Emerging Economy Growth: The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Drivers of EM Performance Drivers of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Emerging Markets Fundamentals Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level Gold At A Key Level Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market An Impressive Bull Market An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts Regime Shifts Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money An Extraordinary Period of Easy Money An Extraordinary Period of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps No More Output Gaps No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Differing Perspectives of Inflation Differing Perspectives of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here Not Much Inflation Here Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning Inflationary Pressures Are Turning Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Financial Leverage Has Risen Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Debt Levels Remain Elevated Debt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Low Rates Have Not Triggered A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Low Rates Have Not Triggered A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Borrowing Costs Are Benign Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt With These Structural Headwinds It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend Global Activity On An Uptrend Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Trends In U.S. Growth Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery A Weak Housing Recovery A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth No Clear Winner On Growth No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? A Turning Point For Italian Banks? A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind China Leaves Deflation Behind China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over Emerging Economy Growth: The Boom Years Are Over Emerging Economy Growth: The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Drivers of EM Performance Drivers of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Emerging Markets Fundamentals Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level Gold At A Key Level Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course 2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

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 The Arabic title of this Special Report is "Against Wasta." Wasta roughly translates as reciprocity in formal and informal dealings. It "indicates that there is a middleman or 'connection' between somebody who wants a job, a license or government service and somebody who is in a position to provide it."1 While it has been helpful, it also has led to profound corruption. Feature The political sandstorm ripping through the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) - visible in the lifting of the ban on women driving cars earlier this year, and, most recently in the consolidation of military and political power by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (often referred to as "MBS") over the past few weeks - must be seen as prelude to implementing Vision 2030, which will feature an ongoing battle against wasta in KSA. If successful, this could transform a feudal desert kingdom into a modern nation-state.2 When the storm passes, MBS will hold the military and political reins of power in the Kingdom. This will allow the Sudairi branch of the Saud family, led by MBS's father, King Salman, to execute on its Vision 2030 agenda to wean itself from an almost-complete dependence on oil-export revenues. To do so, the Kingdom's leadership must successfully navigate OPEC 2.0's production-cutting deal in the short term, and the IPO of Saudi Aramco in the long term.3 KSA's Leadership Is On A Mission Chart of the WeekMarkets Take KSA News In Stride Markets Take KSA News In Stride Markets Take KSA News In Stride It's fairly obvious KSA's leadership and Russian President Vladimir Putin are on the same page re extending OPEC 2.0's 1.8mm b/d production-cutting deal to end-2018, given the public statements of MBS and Putin supporting such a measure. While markets have been responsive to this messaging, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak is restraining a full-throttled embrace of this expectation, saying a decision to extend the deal might not come at OPEC's November 30 meeting, given the amount of data to be analyzed.4 Markets appear to be taking the recent news - particularly the headlines out of KSA - in stride, as the major safe-haven assets have been remarkably well-behaved (Chart of the Week). In our base case, we continue to expect the OPEC 2.0 deal to be extended to end-June, which will lift Brent and WTI prices to $65 and $63/bbl next year. If we do get an extension of the OPEC 2.0 deal to end-December - and the odds of this appear very high - our 2018 Brent and WTI average-price forecasts could increase by as much as $5/bbl.5 KSA, Russia Have A Transactional Relationship, Not An Alliance The public alignment of the views of the Saudi and Russian leaderships are important over the short term. However, this does not necessarily mean both states have achieved a general alignment of views on everything of common concern to them. The OPEC 2.0 coalition led by KSA and Russia - the two largest oil exporters in the world - is a transactional relationship, not an alliance. The coalition members negotiated a deal to remove 1.8mm b/d of oil from the market in order to drain global inventories, particularly in the OECD. This deal was negotiated under duress - Brent prices threatened to fall through the $20/bbl level at the beginning of 2016 in the wake of the market-share war declared by OPEC at the end of 2014.6 Such an outcome would have imperiled the very survival of the member states (Chart 2). The success of OPEC 2.0 has taken many by surprise: The overwhelming market consensus in the lead-up to the deal getting done was the coalition would never come about, and, if it did, it would never be able to maintain the discipline necessary to follow through on its goal to return OECD inventories to their five-year average. BCA was outside this consensus from the get-go.7 And we continue to expect OPEC 2.0's production discipline to be maintained into next year, with KSA and Russia leading by example (Chart 3). Chart 2Oil-Price Collapse Clobbered Reserves Oil-Price Collapse Clobbered Reserves Oil-Price Collapse Clobbered Reserves Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Holds OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Holds OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Holds As important as the management of OPEC 2.0 is to KSA, Russia and the oil markets, the Kingdom's leadership has a laser focus on its chief long-term goal: the Saudi Aramco IPO. In light of its Vision 2030 agenda, the most important decision the Kingdom's leadership will make will be whether to IPO Aramco on a Western bourse - e.g., the NY Stock Exchange - or whether the initial offering of KSA's crown jewel is placed directly with China's sovereign wealth fund (SWF) and two of that country's largest oil companies. KSA controls this evolution. Decisions made by its leaders will resound in the oil markets for years, if not decades, to come. KSA's Anti-Corruption Campaign And The Aramco Offering The recent arrest of Saudi royals and consolidation of power by the Sudairi branch of the Saud royal family - led by King Salman and his son, MBS - appear to be part and parcel of an anti-corruption campaign laid out in the Vision 2030 document last year. This campaign, like the formation of OPEC 2.0, is being undertaken to support the IPO of Saudi Aramco next year. Proceeds from the IPO will support KSA's diversification away from being almost wholly dependent on oil exports.8 King Salman, MBS and their closest advisors have concluded they must reform the system of wasta if the Kingdom is to offer anything resembling a prosperous future full of opportunity to its restive population, most of which - more than 50% - are members of MBS's 30-something demographic cohort (Chart 4). Chart 4KSA's Under-30 Cohort Needs Jobs KSA's Under-30 Cohort Needs Jobs KSA's Under-30 Cohort Needs Jobs The wasta system in the Middle East - like the "old-boy" networks in the West - can be positive, in that it can "lower transaction costs and reduce the problem of asymmetric information if, for example, the use of such connections can place disadvantaged groups or individuals into the workforce who might otherwise not have the same opportunity as others," according to Prof. Ramady. However, such a system can, and has, become corrosive to the evolution of society, and can stunt the evolution toward an innovative, dynamic society and economy. Prof. Ramady notes, "Fighting negative wasta is important for the countries that seek to truly implement a more equal opportunity and entrepreneurial knowledge-based economic base." This discontent with the status quo post-Arab Spring was apparent in 2016, when BCA's Geopolitical Strategy noted KSA was in the early stages of such reforms.9 From everything King Salman and MBS have said and done to date, this appears to be the agenda that is being enacted. The lifting of the ban on women driving in KSA to take effect next year; hosting investors and entrepreneurs in Riyadh in September - the so-called Davos in the Desert presentations; even the recent mass arrests and consolidation of power are part and parcel of this reform.10 Early indications of this agenda could be seen in April 2015, when KSA lowered the value of projects requiring approval by the Council of Ministers to SR100 million from SR300 million ($27 million from $80 million). The collapse in oil prices from more than $100/bbl in 2014 likely drove this decision, but, as Prof. Ramady notes, "the intention of the Saudi government was clear: that even 'small' projects (by Saudi standards) could now be scrutinised to avoid 'hidden costs' and corruption." Following the April 2015 reforms, King Salman told the Kingdom's Anti-Corruption Committee "that his government would have zero tolerance for corruption in the country and that he and other members of the royal family are not above the law and that any citizen can file a lawsuit against the king, crown prince or other members of the royal family. These were some of the strongest statements to be made by a Saudi monarch on the issue of combating corruption and nepotism." (Emphasis added.)11 The Aramco IPO The way KSA monetizes its crown jewel will have a profound effect on the evolution of the country's institutions and the oil markets. MBS's implementation of the anti-corruption campaign laid out by his father, King Salman, suggests an IPO on a western bourse is in the offing. Such a listing would impose regulatory and transparency requirements on Aramco that are fully consistent with the royal family's words and deeds since King Salman took power in January 2015. Monetizing 5% of what could potentially be the largest oil-producing and -refining enterprise in the world - the only asset capable of funding the transformation of an entire country of 32mm people - on a bourse that requires even a minimal level of transparency for investors means the government of KSA could demand similar transparency from every other firm and individual in the Kingdom. It gives the government license, so to speak, to develop and enforce the rule of law, consistent with King Salman's remarks to the Anti-Corruption Committee. This will resonate with the younger KSA elites, many of whom are tech-savvy, educated in the West and in MBS's 30-something cohort. This would be a huge gamble on the future and the Kingdom's ability to transform itself into an open monarchy. Success would transform a feudal kingdom into a modern nation-state with an enfranchised population that can advance based on entrepreneurial innovation and merit. The rule of law and transparency in business and governmental dealings would replace wasta, privilege and corruption. It also could expose the royal family to a palace coup, as Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical strategist, notes in his most recent report "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," which we cite above. The stakes couldn't be higher. Listing on a Western bourse also would position Saudi Aramco squarely in the market and central to it, executing on its plan to become the dominant global oil refiner, and funding the Kingdom's diversification away from near-total dependence on oil exports. Lastly, it would allow KSA to retain its geopolitical optionality - playing competing global interests off each other when negotiating alliances and commercial deals. Implications Of An Aramco Private Placement If the Aramco shares are privately placed with China's SWF and the country's two largest oil companies, the pressure to reform likely would be lessened, as the Chinese government typically does not make reform demands on governments of resource-rich countries in which it is investing.12 Assuming China's SWF and/or the oil companies participating in its bidding consortium received a seat(s) on the Aramco board, China certainly would gain greater assurance over its crude oil and refined product supplies going forward. This is a critical concern with domestic production falling and demand for crude oil increasing (Chart 5). And it would give China an eventual interest in using military power to protect its investments in KSA, thus advancing and supporting its long-term evolution as a superpower.13 It also would, in all likelihood, expand the membership of the club trading oil in yuan, which now includes Russia and Iran, to KSA and its GCC allies and Iraq by 2020, if not sooner. This would represent ~ 39mm b/d of production (Chart 6), and 23mm b/d of exports. BP estimates just over 42mm b/d of crude oil are traded globally, meaning this petro-yuan producing coalition would account for 55% of total exports.14 Chart 5China Needs To Offset Declining Production China Needs To Offset Declining Production China Needs To Offset Declining Production Chart 6A Petro-yuan Would Be Formidable A Petro-yuan Would Be Formidable A Petro-yuan Would Be Formidable At some 9mm b/d, China accounts for ~ 21% of global crude oil imports. The combination of OPEC 2.0's crude production and exports with China's import volumes could make the OPEC 2.0 + 1 - the "+1" being China - the most potent force in the oil trading markets, if such a coalition can find a way to balance the competing interests of the world's largest exporters (KSA and Russia) with those of the world's largest importer (China). It also would put the petro-yuan bloc firmly in China's geopolitical orbit, allowing it to expand its sphere of influence deeply into the Persian Gulf, and the global oil market. Bottom Line: The recent turmoil in KSA must be seen as the opening moves in the transformation of a feudal desert kingdom into a modern nation-state. The evolution of the transformation is critically dependent on decisions made by KSA's leadership. How this breaks will profoundly affect the global oil markets and the Kingdom itself particularly in regard to how oil is priced - USD vs. yuan - and the effect new trading blocs have on market structure. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Ramady, Mohamed A., ed. (2016), "The Political Economy of Wasta: Use and Abuse of Social Capital Networking," Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Ramady is a professor of Finance and Economics at King Fahd in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The introduction of the book starts by quoting the proverb: To accept a benefit is to sell one's freedom. 2 Please see "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," published November 15, 2017, in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy, for a full analysis of these issues. 3 OPEC 2.0 is our moniker for the OPEC and non-OPEC coalition of oil producers led by KSA and Russia, which agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of oil production from the market at the end of last year. 4 Please see "Russia's Novak: Oil cut pact extension decision not necessarily at Nov meeting," published November 2, 2017, by reuters.com. Elevating the level of uncertainty as to when the OPEC 2.0 pact will be unwound is exactly the sort of forward guidance OPEC 2.0 leaders would need to convey to markets in order to backwardate the forward oil-price curve - i.e., keep longer-dated prices below prompt prices. A backwardated forward curve means U.S. shale producers realize lower prices on longer-dated hedges, which restrains the number of rigs they can deploy in the field. On Wednesday, Reuters also reported as spokesman for Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company, foresees difficulty in the wind-down of OPEC 2.0's production cuts - and the return to unrestrained production. Mikhail Leontyev said, "Speaking about the company's concerns, first of all it was about how to prepare for suspending measures to restrict production. This is a serious question. Sooner or later, of course, these measures will be lifted," Leontyev said. "Now or later, that's a separate question. It's a serious challenge, for which one needs to prepare." Roseneft is responsible for 40% of Russia's oil output; it is 50% owned by the Russian government. Please see "Russia's Rosneft says managing exit from OPEC+ deal is a serious challenge," published by reuters.com on November 15, 2017. 5 Please see "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, October 19, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Worth noting is the fact that should OPEC 2.0 not extend the expiry of the production-cutting deal markets likely would sell off quickly. This is because the leadership of the coalition - MBS and President Putin - have publicly embraced such a move; not doing so would be a disappointment to markets. Our modelling in the article cited here indicates the cuts have to be extended at least to end-June 2018, if the OPEC 2.0 goal of reducing OECD commercial oil inventories to their 5-year average levels is to be achieved. Also worth noting, if we do see the OPEC 2.0 cuts extended to end-2018, we likely will be widening our implied Brent vs. WTI spread to $4/bbl, given the transportation bottlenecks that are likely to emerge in the event of a further lift in U.S. prices: Pipeline infrastructure in the most productive shales, particularly the Permian Basin, cannot get oil to export facilities as quickly as it is produced. Please see "Transportation constraints and export costs widen the Brent-WTI price spread," published in the U.S. EIA's This Week in Petroleum series November 8, 2017. 6 We discuss this at length in our 2017 outlook. Please see "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy December 8, 2016. See also our "2016 Commodity Outlook: Neutral Across the Board," published December 17, 2016, for a detailed discussion of pricing dynamics as this time. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see the 2017 Outlook referenced above in footnote 6. 8 KSA officials believe the company is worth $2 trillion, based on their expectation a 5% IPO of the company would generate $100 billion. 9 Please see "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," the May 2016 issue of BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at gps.bacresearch.com. 10 Please see "Saudi Arabia plans to build futuristic city for innovators," published October 24, 2017, by phys.org. 11 Please see footnote 1, p. ix. 12 Please see "Exclusive - China offers to buy 5 percent of Saudi Aramco directly: sources," published by reuters.com October 16, 2017. 13 We examined this in depth in our report entitled "OPEC 2.0: Fear and Loathing in Oil Markets," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy on April 27, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/oil/oil-trade-movements.html. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades ضد الواسطة ضد الواسطة Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table ضد الواسطة ضد الواسطة Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Middle Eastern geopolitics will add upside risk to our bullish oil view, but not cause a drastic supply shock; Saudi Arabia is at last converting from a feudal monarchy to a modern nation-state; The greatest risk is domestic upheaval, motivating Saudi internal reforms and power consolidation; Abroad, the Saudis are constrained by military weakness, relatively low oil prices, and U.S. foreign policy; Geopolitical risk premia are seeping back into oil prices, but OPEC 2.0 and the Saudi-Iranian détente are still intact. Feature Geopolitical and political turbulence in Saudi Arabia kicked into high gear in November, with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman apparently turning the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton into a luxury prison for members of the royal family.1 At the same time, rumors are swirling that the bizarre resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, allegedly orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, is a potential casus belli. In this scenario, Lebanon would become a proxy war for a confrontation between Sunni Gulf monarchies led by Saudi Arabia (aided by Israel) and their Shia rivals, led by Iran and its proxy Hezbollah. To our clients around the world we say, "please take a deep breath." In this report, we intend to separate the signal from the noise. The Middle East has been a theater of paradigm shifts since at least 2011.2 Not all of them are investment relevant. In this report, we conclude that: Changes under way in the Middle East are the product of impersonal, structural forces that have been in place since the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in 2011; Saudi Arabia is engaged in belated, European-style nation-building, a volatile process that will raise tensions in the country and the region; Saudi Arabia remains constrained by a lack of resources and military capabilities, and unclear alliance structures. Iran, meanwhile, benefits from the status quo. As such, no major war with Iran is likely in the short term, although proxy wars could intensify. In the short term, we agree that the moves by Saudi leadership will increase tensions domestically and in the region. However, over the long term, the evolution of Saudi Arabia from the world's last feudal monarchy into a modern nation-state should improve the predictability of Middle East politics. Regardless of our view, one thing is clear: Saudi Arabia has an incentive to keep oil prices at the current $64 per barrel, or higher, as domestic and regional instability looms. As such, we believe that risks to oil prices are to the upside, but a global growth-constraining geopolitical shock to oil supply is unlikely. The Paradigm Shift: Multipolarity "Tikrit is a prime example of what we are worried about ... Iran is taking over [Iraq]."3 -- Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Foreign Minister, to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, March 5, 2015 Pundits, journalists, investors, and Middle East experts all make the same mistake when analyzing the region: they assume it exists on "Planet Middle East." It does not. The Middle East is part of a global system and its internal mechanic is not sui generis. Its actors are bit players in a much bigger game, which involves nuclear powers like the U.S., China, and Russia. Yes, the whims and designs of Middle East leaders do matter, but only within the global constraints that they are subject to. The greatest such constraint has been the objective and observable withdrawal of the U.S. from the Middle East, emblematized by a dramatic reduction of U.S. troops in the region (Chart 1). The U.S. went from stationing 250,000 troops in 2007 to mere 36,000 in 2017. The withdrawal was not merely a manifestation of President Barack Obama's dovish foreign policy. Rather, it was motivated by U.S. grand strategy, specifically the need to "pivot to Asia" and challenge China's rising geopolitical prowess head on (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging Chart 2China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. As we expected, President Donald Trump has not materially increased the U.S. presence in the region since taking office.4 His efforts to eradicate the Islamic State have largely built on those of his predecessor. While he has rhetorically changed policy towards Iran, and taken steps to imperil the nuclear deal by decertifying it, he has not abrogated the deal. The U.S. president can withdraw from the nuclear deal without congressional approval, yet President Trump has merely passed the buck to Congress, which has until the end of the year to decide whether to re-impose sanctions. For Saudi Arabia, U.S. rhetoric and half measures do not change the fact that Iraq is now devoid of American troops and largely in the Iranian sphere of influence. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Saudi Arabia enjoyed the best of both worlds for two decades: a Sunni-dominated but weakened Iraq serving the role of an impregnable buffer between itself and the much more militarily capable Iran. Since Iraq's paradigm shift in the wake of American invasion, the buffer has not only vanished but has been replaced by a Shia-dominated, Iranian-influenced Iraqi state (albeit still relatively weak). Unsurprisingly, Saudi military spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from the 2011 U.S. withdrawal to 2015, and in absolute terms has risen from $48.5 billion in 2011 to $63.7 billion in 2016, revealing a deep concern in Riyadh that its northern border has become nearly indefensible (Chart 3). Chart 3Saudis React To U.S. Withdrawal The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Meanwhile, Baghdad's heavy-handed political and military tactics produced an immediate reaction from the Sunni population.5 Militant Sunni insurgent groups, with material support from unofficial (and probably official) channels in Saudi Arabia and wider Gulf monarchies, began to fight back. Violence escalated and soon melded with the emerging civil war in Syria, which by early 2013 had taken on a sectarian cast as well. This led to the emergence of the Islamic State, which grew out of the earlier Sunni insurgence against the U.S. in the Al Anbar governorate. The military success of the Islamic State in 2014 against the inexperienced and demoralized Iraqi Army forced Baghdad to lean even more heavily on domestic Shia militias, and Iran, for survival. Islamic State militants reached the outskirts of Baghdad in September 2014 and were only beaten back by a combination of hardline Shia militias and Iranian advisers and irregular troops. From the Saudi perspective, this direct intervention by the Iranian military in Iraq was the final straw. Most jarring to the Saudis was the fact that the Americans acquiesced to the Iranian presence in Iraq and even collaborated with Iran. In fact, the overt presence of Iranian military personnel in Syria and Iraq drew no rebuke from the U.S. Some American officials even seemed to praise the Iranian contribution to the global effort against the Islamic State. Meanwhile, the nuclear negotiations continued undisturbed, right down to their successful conclusion in July 2015. Bottom Line: Global multipolarity and the rise of China has forced America's hand, and the dramatic withdrawal of military assets from the Middle East is the direct consequence. Saudi Arabia has suffered a dramatic reversal of geopolitical fortunes, with its crucial geographic buffer, Iraq, now dominated by its strategic rival, Iran. Saudi Arabia "Goes It Alone," And Fails Miserably "Saudi Arabia will go it alone."6 -- Mohammed bin Nawwaf Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saudi ambassador to the U.K., December 17, 2013 To counter growing Iranian influence across the region and its strategic isolation, Saudi Arabia relied on five general strategies, all of which have failed: Map 1Saudi Arabia's Shia-Populated Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Asymmetric warfare: Saudi Arabia has explicitly and implicitly supported radical-Islamist Sunni militant groups around the region. Some of these groups were either directly linked to, or vestiges of, al-Qaeda. The Islamic State, which received implicit support from Saudi Arabia in its early days of fighting president Bashar al-Assad in Syria, eventually turned against Saudi Arabia itself. Its agents claimed multiple mosque attacks in the Shia-populated Eastern Provinces (Map 1), attacks intended to incite sectarian violence in this key oil-producing Saudi area. Saudi officials also became alarmed at a large number of Saudi youth who went to fight with Islamic State fighters across the region, some of whom are now back in the country (Chart 4). "Sunni NATO": Talk of a broad, Sunni alliance against Iran has not materialized. Despite the Saudis' best efforts, the main Sunni military powers - Egypt and Pakistan - have remained aloof of its regional efforts to isolate Iran. The best example is the paltry contribution of its Sunni peers to the ongoing war in Yemen, where anti-government Houthi rebels are nominally allied with Iran. Pakistan contemplated sending a brigade of 3,000 troops to the Saudi-Yemen border earlier this year, but has refused to join the fight directly. Egypt sent under 1,000 troops early in the war, but none since. Talk of a 40,000 Egyptian deployment to the Yemen conflict earlier this year has not materialized. If Pakistan and Egypt are unwilling to help Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, why would they be interested in directly confronting a formidable military power like Iran? Direct warfare: When supporting militants and spending money on allies did not work, Saudi Arabia decided to try its hand at direct warfare. In February 2015, it began airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The war, which costs Saudi Arabia over $70 billion a year, has gone badly for Saudi Arabia.7 Despite two years of intensive involvement by Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies, the capital Sanaa remains in Houthi hands. As far as we are aware, there has been no real Saudi ground troop commitment to the conflict. K-street: Despite its best efforts, and the vast resources spent on lobbyists in Washington, Saudi Arabia could not prevent the U.S. détente with Iran. What the Saudis failed to appreciate was multipolarity, i.e. how the U.S. pivot to Asia would affect Washington's policy toward the Middle East.8 Oil prices: At the fateful November 2014 OPEC meeting, Saudi Arabia refused to cut oil production in the face of falling prices, instead increasing production (Chart 5). Since late 2016, however, Saudi Arabia has reversed this aggressive bid for market share and orchestrated oil production cuts with Russia and OPEC states. Chart 4The Islamic State Movement Threatens Saudi Arabia The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Chart 5Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Each and every one of the above strategies has failed. The last one is the most spectacular: Saudi Arabia was forced to backtrack from its oil production surge and negotiate with long-time geopolitical rival Russia, which was courting the Saudis to relieve its budget pressures from low oil prices. Saudi Arabia not only accepted the need to work with Russia, but also acquiesced to Russia's geopolitical demands for détente in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The latter will force Saudi Arabia at least tacitly to accept the continued leadership of President al-Assad in Syria. Furthermore, Saudi intervention in Yemen has gone nowhere. Pundits who claim that the Saudis are on the verge of a major military engagement in ______ (insert Middle East country), should carefully study the effectiveness of the Saudi military in Yemen. After over two years of Saudi bombardment, the Houthis are further entrenched in the country. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's Sunni allies have not committed many ground troops to the effort, save for Sudan, which is impoverished and has no choice but to curry favor with its largest foreign donor. Bottom Line: The past six years have taught the Saudi leadership a series of hard lessons. Saudi Arabia cannot "go at it alone." On the contrary, the rise of the Islamic State - a messianic political entity claiming religious superiority to the Saudi kingdom - has alarmed the Saudi leadership and awoken it to a truly existential risk: domestic upheaval. Nation-Building, Saudi Style "What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn't know how to deal with it. And the problem spread all over the world. Now is the time to get rid of it."9 -- Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, October 24, 2017 European nation-states developed over the course of five hundred years, from roughly the end of the Hundred Years' War between England and France to the unification of Italy and Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. Fundamentally, these efforts were about centralizing state power under a single authority by evolving the governance system away from feudal monarchy toward a constitutional, bureaucratic, and national system. The defining feature of feudalism was the separation of feudal society into three "estates": the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The first two estates - the clergy and the nobility - had considerable rights and privileges. The king, who was above all three estates, nonetheless had to curry favor with both in order to raise taxes and wage wars. The state was weak and often susceptible to foreign influence via interference in all three estates. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's last feudal monarchies and it does not have five hundred years to evolve. Still, the best model for what is going on inside Saudi Arabia today is the European nation-building of the past. In brief, recent Saudi policies - from foreign policy assertiveness to domestic reforms - are intended to centralize power and evolve Saudi Arabia into a modern nation-state. Three parallel efforts, modeled on European history from the last millennia, are under way: Curbing the "first estate": Saudi Arabia has begun to curb the power of the religious establishment. In April 2016, it severely curbed the powers of the hai'a - the country's religious police. They no longer have the power to arrest. Instead, they have to report violations of Islamic law to the secular police; and they are only allowed to work during office hours.10 The state has even arrested a prominent cleric who opposed the change in hai'a powers, and has dismissed many other conservative clerics since King Salman came to power. Curbing the "second estate": The detention of members of the Saudi royal family at the Ritz Carlton is part of an ongoing effort to curb the powers of the "landed aristocracy" and bring it under the control of the ruling Sudairi branch of the royal family.11 This is not just palace intrigue, but a necessary step in harnessing the financial resources of the state, which are currently dispersed amongst roughly 2,000 members of the "second estate." Rallying the "third estate": Nationalism was used by European leaders of the nineteenth century to rally the plebs behind the state-building efforts of the time. Similarly, King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are building a Saudi national identity. To do so, they are appealing to the youth, which makes up 57% of the country's population (Chart 6), as well as emphasizing the existential threat that Iran poses to the kingdom. Chart 6Still A Young Country Still A Young Country Still A Young Country We do not see these efforts as merely the reckless agenda of an impulsive thirty year-old, as Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is often derisively portrayed by his opponents. We see genuine strategy in every policy that has been initiated by Saudi leadership since King Salman took over in January 2015. Several efforts are particularly notable. Vision 2030: A Major Salvo Against The "First Estate" As we indicated in May 2016, we consider the Saudi "Vision 2030" reform blueprint to be a serious document.12 While its plan to address Saudi economic constraints is overly ambitious and vague, there are nonetheless several prominent themes that reveal the preferences of Saudi leaders: Education: The document emphasizes the link between education and economic development. Notably, there is no mention of religion. Gender Equality: Elevating the role of women in the economy will require relaxing many strict social and religious rules that impede gender equality. As if on cue, the Saudi leadership announced that it would soon end its policy of forbidding women to drive. Corruption: A new emphasis on government transparency and reducing corruption will undermine many powerful vested interests, including the religious elites. We were right to emphasize these three themes back in May 2016 as it is now obvious that King Salman and his son Mohammad bin Salman are following the prescriptions of their Vision 2030. What explains their reformist zeal? Over half of the Saudi population of almost 30 million is below 35 years of age. The youth population is facing difficulty entering the labor force, with unemployment above 30% (Chart 7). This rising angst is often expressed online, where the Saudi population is as interconnected as its peers in emerging markets (Chart 8). Saudi citizens have an average of seven social media accounts and the country ranks seventh globally in terms of the absolute number of social media accounts. Between a quarter and a fifth of the population uses Facebook, a quarter of all Saudi teenagers use Snapchat,13 and Twitter has the highest level of penetration in Saudi Arabia of any other country in the region.14 Chart 7A Potential National Security Risk A Potential National Security Risk A Potential National Security Risk Chart 8Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others The idea that the royal family can take on the religious establishment on behalf of the youth seems far-fetched. Skeptics point out that the conservative Sunni Wahhabi religious movement lies at the foundation of the Saudi state. However, commentators who take this mid-eighteenth-century alliance as a key feature of modern Saudi Arabia often overstate its nature and influence. Not only is the Wahhabi hold on power potentially overstated, but Westerners may even overstate the country's religiosity as a whole. According to the World Values Survey, Saudi Arabia is less religious than Egypt and is on par with Morocco.15 Although Saudi Arabia has not appeared in the survey since 2004, it is fair to assume that, with the proliferation of social media and rise in the youth population, the country has not become more religious over the past decade (Chart 9). In addition, Saudis identify with values of self-expression over values of survival (as much as moderate Muslim Malaysians, for example), which is a sign of a relatively wealthy, industrial society. Chart 9Saudi Arabia: More Modern Than You Think The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Weekend At The Ritz: The "Second Estate" Is Put On Notice The ongoing effort to curb the power of the Saudi "second estate" is not just about court intrigue and political maneuvering. Without harnessing the economic resources of the wider Saudi aristocracy, the state would succumb to debilitating capital outflows. If the Saudi "second estate" decided to "vote" against King Salman and his son with their "deposits" - and flee the country - the all-important currency peg would collapse. Despite a pickup in oil prices, Saudi Arabia's currency reserves are falling rapidly and could soon dip below the total amount of local-currency broad money (Chart 10). Beneath that point, confidence among locals and foreigners in the currency peg could shatter, leading to massive capital flight, which was clearly a very serious problem as of end-2016 (Chart 11). Chart 10KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 11KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist KSA: Capital Outflows Persist The peg of the Saudi riyal to the U.S. dollar is not just an economic tool. It is a crucial social stability anchor for an economy that imports nearly all of its basic necessities. De-pegging would lead to a massive increase in import costs and thus a potential political and social crisis. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) has at its disposal considerable resources for the next two years. However, this is only the case if capital outflows do not pick up and oil prices continue to stabilize. The Russia-OPEC deal is in place to ensure the latter. The "weekend at the Ritz" is meant to ensure the former. But doesn't the crackdown against the wealth of 2,000 royal family members represent appropriation of private property? Not in the minds of King Salman and his reformist son. In fact, if the financial wealth of the royal family is used to fill the coffers of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, there is no reason why members of the Saudi "second estate" cannot benefit from its future investment returns and essentially "clip coupons" for a living. In fact, prior to the anti-corruption crackdown against the "second estate," Saudi officials hosted a completely different event at the Ritz Carlton: a gathering of top international investors for a conference called "Davos in the Desert." Judging by the conversations we had with a number of participants at that event, the point was not to encourage investments in Saudi Arabia. Rather, it was to secure the services of top international managers as Saudi Arabia ramps up the investment activities of its Public Investment Fund (PIF). Investors should therefore consider the first weekend at the Ritz as the launch of a new international investment vehicle by Saudi officials and the second weekend at the Ritz as its capitalization by the wider "second estate." We expect that fighting corruption will remain a major domestic policy thrust going forward. A recent academic study, for example, takes on the difficult job of eradicating wasta - the concept that each favor or privilege in Saudi society flows through middlemen or connections.16 The volume has been edited by Mohamed A. Ramady, professor of Finance and Economics at King Fahd University in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and is undoubtedly supported by the royal family. Moreover, King Salman and his son have the example of Chinese President Xi Jinping's impressive power consolidation via anti-corruption campaign right in front of them and are unlikely to have embarked on this course with the expectation that it would be a short process. Iran As An Existential Threat: Harnessing The "Third Estate" Real reform is always and everywhere difficult, otherwise the desired end-state would already be the form. For the Saudi leadership, attacking both the first and second estate presents considerable risks. It is appropriate, therefore, to believe that a palace coup may be attempted against King Salman and his son.17 International tensions with Iran are a particularly useful strategy to distract the opposition and paint all domestic dissent as treasonous. This is not to say that Saudi Arabia does not face considerable strategic challenges from Iran. As mentioned, Iranian influence in Iraq is particularly threatening to Saudi Arabia as it gives Tehran influence over a key strategic buffer that also produces 4.4 million barrels of crude per day. Furthermore, Iran supported the 2011 uprising in Shia-majority Bahrain against the Saudi-allied al-Khalifa monarchy; it at least nominally supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen; it has directly intervened in Syria on behalf of President al-Assad; and it continues to support Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is safe to say that, since 2011, Iran has been ascendant in the Middle East and has surrounded Saudi Arabia with strategic threats on all points of the compass. But to what extent is the Saudi rhetoric on Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, and Qatar a real threat to the stability in the Middle East? We turn to this question in our next section. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's domestic intrigue is far more logical than pundits and the media make it out to be. King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are trying to build a modern nation state from what is today the world's last feudal monarchy. To do so, they have to enlist the support of the third estate - the country's large youth population - and curb the powers of its first and second estates - the religious establishment and the landed aristocracy. The process will be filled with risks and volatility, but is ultimately necessary for the long-term stability of the kingdom. Regional Risk Of War Is Overstated "[I am] positive there will be no implications coming out of this dramatic situation at all."18 -- Secretary of Defense James Mattis, asked about the Qatar crisis and the fight against ISIS, June 5, 2017 As this report goes to publication Saudi Arabia has accused Iranian-allied Hezbollah of forcing Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to run for his life. Hariri resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia. Although he claims that he is not being held against his will by Saudi authorities, his resignation is highly suspect. Saudi officials have also called a failed missile attack on Riyadh's airport, allegedly launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen, as a possible "act of war" by Iran. Meanwhile, Bahrain's Saudi-allied government has accused Iran of destroying an oil pipeline via terrorist action. The region's rumor mill - one of the most productive in the world - is in overdrive. What are the chances of increased proxy warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran? We think that there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia will step up its military activity in the ancillary parts of the Middle East. In particular, we could see renewed Saudi military campaigns in Yemen and Bahrain. In isolation, these campaigns would add a temporary risk premium to oil prices. But given that Iran has no intention to become directly involved in either, we would expect Saudi moves to be largely for show. Over the long term, we do not see a direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia for three reasons. First, Saudi military capabilities are paltry and the kingdom has failed to secure the support of the wider Sunni world for its "Sunni NATO." We have already mentioned Saudi military failures in Yemen. Anyone who thinks that Saudi Arabia is ready to directly confront Iran must answer two questions. First, how does the Saudi military confront a formidable foe like Iran when it cannot dislodge Houthis from Yemen? Second, if Saudi Arabia is itching for a real conflict with Iran, why is it not saber-rattling in Iraq, a far more strategic piece of real estate for Saudi Arabia than any of the other countries where it accuses Iran of meddling? Chart 12Correlation Between Oil Prices And Military Disputes The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Second, oil prices remain a constraint to war. The reality is that there is a well-known relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 12). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. Chart 13 shows that oil states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes when oil prices are higher.19 While oil prices have recovered from their doldrums from two years ago, they are also a far cry from their pre-2014 highs. In fact, by our calculation, oil prices are still below the Saudi budget break-even price of oil, despite its best efforts to implement austerity (Chart 14). Chart 13More Oil Revenue = More Aggression The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise Chart 14Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Third, Saudi Arabia has failed to secure a clear security commitment from the U.S. While the Trump administration is far more open to supporting Saudi Arabia than the Obama administration, it still criticized the Saudi decision to ostracize Qatar. Secretary of Defense James Mattis made a visit to Qatar in September to offer American support. In a shocking reversal to over half-a-century of geopolitics, King Salman went to Moscow this October to deepen geopolitical relations with Russia.20 The visit included several business deals in the realm of energy and a significant promise by Saudi Arabia to purchase Russian arms in the future, including the powerful S-400 SAM system. Saudi Arabia is the world's third-largest arms importer and uses purchases as a tool of diplomacy, but has never purchased weapons from Russia in a significant way in the past. While many pundits have pointed to the Saudi-Russian détente as a sign of strength, we see it as a sign of weakness. It illustrates that Saudi Arabia is diversifying its security portfolio away from the U.S. It is doing so because it has to, not because it wants to. As U.S. petroleum imports continue to decline due to domestic shale production, Saudi Arabia is compelled to find new allies (Chart 15). The plan to hold an initial public offering for Aramco, and to target sovereign Chinese entities as major bidders for Aramco assets, fits this pattern as well. Chart 15Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security ##br##Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline However, diversifying the geopolitical security portfolio to include Russia and China will not mean that Saudi Arabia will have a blank check to wage direct war against Iran. Both Russia and China have considerable diplomatic and economic interests in Iran and are as likely to restrain as to enable Saudi ambition. Finally, talk of a Saudi-Israeli alliance against Hezbollah in Lebanon is as far-fetched as a direct Saudi-Iranian confrontation. Israel won the 2006 war against Hezbollah, but at a high cost of 157 soldiers killed and 860 wounded.21 The Israeli public grew tired of the one month campaign, showing political limits to offensive war. Furthermore, twelve years later, Hezbollah is even more deeply entrenched in Lebanon. Unless Saudi Arabia is willing to provide ground troops for the effort (see Yemen discussion above), it is unclear why Israel would want to enter the morass of Lebanese ground combat on behalf of Riyadh. Bottom Line: Constraints to Saudi offensive military action remain considerable: paltry military capability, fiscal constraints imposed by low oil prices, and a lack of clear support from the U.S. While rhetorical attacks on Iran serve the strategic goal of nation-building, we do not expect a major war between oil-producing states that would significantly raise oil prices over the medium term. The rhetoric and posturing will increase volatility and temporarily push up prices from time to time. Investment Implications Of Saudi Nation-Building First, on the question of OPEC 2.0, our baseline case is for the 1.8 million barrel-per-day production cuts to be extended through June 2018, drawing OECD inventories down toward their five-year average and creating the conditions for Brent and WTI prices to average $65 per barrel and $63 per barrel respectively next year.22 Moreover, both Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin have endorsed extensions through end-2018. These comments add bullish upside risk to prices, though they also alter perceptions and thus raise the short-term downside risk if no extension is agreed this month (which we think is the least likely scenario). Second, as to broader geopolitical risks in the Middle East, we believe they are rising yet again in the short and medium term, after the relative calm of 2017.23 We could see Saudi officials decide to ramp up military operations in Yemen or revive them in neighboring Bahrain. However, we do not see much of a chance of serious conflict in Lebanon or Qatar. The former would require an Israeli military intervention, which is unlikely given the outcome of the 2006 war. The latter would require American acquiescence, which is unlikely given the vital U.S. strategic presence in the country's Al Udeid military base. Nonetheless, even temporary military operations in any of these locales could add a geopolitical risk premium to oil markets. For example, the 2006 Lebanon-Israel War, which had no impact on oil production, generated a significant jump in oil prices (Chart 16). Chart 16Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Over the long term, how should investors make sense of the complicated Middle East geopolitical theater? Our rule of thumb is always to seek out the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. For a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications, we would need to see it have an impact on at least two of the following three factors: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni versus Shia. When we consider the security dilemma between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia are two regions critical to global oil supply. Tellingly, neither has played a role in the recent spate of tensions between the two countries. Saudi Arabia has been very careful not to increase tensions with Iran in Iraq. In fact, the Saudi leadership has reached out to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who was received by King Salman in October in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. How should investors price domestic political intrigue in Saudi Arabia? In the long term, any failure of King Salman and his son to reform the country would be negative for internal stability, with risks to oil production if social unrest were to increase. In the short and medium term, however, even a palace coup would likely have no lasting impact on oil prices as it would be highly unlikely that an alternative leadership would imperil the kingdom's oil exports. On the contrary, a coup against King Salman could lead to lower oil prices if the new leadership in Riyadh decided to renege on their oil production cuts with Russia. The bottom line is that the geopolitical risk premium is likely to rise. The evolution of Saudi Arabia away from a feudal monarchy requires the suppression of the kingdom's first and second estates, a dangerous business that will likely be smoothed by nationalism and saber-rattling. Risks to oil prices, therefore, are to the upside. However, given the considerable constraints on Saudi Arabia's military and foreign policy capabilities, we do not foresee global growth-constraining oil supply risks in the Middle East. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The latest news from Riyadh is that the nearby Courtyard by Marriott Hotel may have been enlisted by the Saudi authorities for the crackdown, in addition to the Ritz Carlton. If true, we can only imagine the horrors that the prisoners are subject to! 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Iran 'taking over' Iraq, Saudis warn, blaming U.S. refusal to send troops against ISIS," The National Post, dated March 5, 2015, available at nationalpost.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Iran's influence in Iraq grew almost immediately following the American military withdrawal. Iraq's Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, wasted no time revealing his allegiance to Iran or his sectarian preferences. Baghdad issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi literally the day after the last American troops withdrew from the country, signaling to the Sunni establishment that compromise was not a priority. Persecution of the wider Sunni population soon followed, with counter-insurgency operations in Sunni populated Al Anbar and Nineveh governorates. 6 Please see Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, "Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone," New York Times, dated December 17, 2013, available at nytimes.com. 7 Please see Bruce Riedel, "Saudi Arabia's Mounting Security Challenges," Al Monitor, dated December 2015, available at al-monitor.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Martin Chulov, "I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam, says crown prince," The Guardian, dated October 24, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 10 Something tells us that most violations of Islamic law are likely to be committed after hours! 11 The Sudairi branch of the Saud dynasty refers to the issue of Saudi Arabia's founder Abdulaziz Ibn Saud with Hassa bint Ahmed Al Sudairi, one of Ibn Saud's wives and a member of the powerful Al Sudairis clan. The union produced seven sons, the largest faction out of the 45 sons that Ibn Saud fathered. As the largest grouping, the sons - often referred to as the "Sudairi Seven" - were able to consolidate power and unite against the other brothers. In addition to the current King Salman, the other member of the Sudairi faction who became a king was Fahd, ruling from 1982 to 2005. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The app is used to transmit photos and videos between users that disappear from the device after being viewed in 10 seconds. It is highly unlikely to be used for religious education. It is highly likely to be used by teenagers for ... well, use your imagination. 14 Please see "Social Media In Saudi Arabia - Statistics And Trends," TFE Times, dated January 12, 2017, available at tfetimes.com; "Saudi social media users ranked 7th in the world," Arab News, November 14, 2015, available at arabnews.com. 15 The World Values Survey is used in academic political science research to track changes in global social and political values. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have summarized the key findings in Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005). For more information, please see http://worldvaluessurvey.org. 16 Please see Mohamed A. Ramady, ed., The Political Economy Of Wasta: Use and Abuse of Social Capital Networking (New York: Springer, 2016). 17 It would not be the first such coup in Saudi history. King Saud was deposed in 1962 by his brother, King Faisal. 18 Please see Nahal Toosi and Madeline Conway, "Tillerson: Dispute Between Gulf States And Qatar Won't Affect Counterterrorism," dated June 5, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 19 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behaviour," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at www.iie.com. 20 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "Mideast War, By The Numbers," Associated Press, August 17, 2006, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 22 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

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

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

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