Market Returns

Highlights The evolution of U.S. tax policy - chiefly the border-adjustment tax (BAT) proposed by House Republicans - will preoccupy commodity markets for the balance of the year. Our House view gives 50-50 odds to the passage of a BAT, which, even though these are coin-toss odds, still are significantly higher than the consensus view of 20ish percent. While oil and apparel likely will be exempted from the BAT, steel, bulks, base metals, and ags probably won't be. The BAT's effect on the USD and EM commodity demand could be deflationary longer term. Energy: Overweight. The likelihood of crude oil and refined products being exempted from the BAT exceeds 50%, in our view, which means oil-market fundamentals likely will continue to be dominated by the supply-side adjustments. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese reflationary policies will dominate pricing short term. Longer term, markets will have to price in the effects of the U.S. BAT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold could trade higher in the near term (i.e., until Congress is done with the BAT), as the Fed holds off on any adjustments to policy rates until the Trump administration's fiscal policies come more clearly into view. Passage of a BAT will complicate monetary policy by lifting the broad trade-weighted USD and tightening monetary conditions in the U.S. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Heavy rains in Argentina could support soybeans. We remain underweight. Longer term, the BAT will be an important driver of prices. Feature We give 50-50 odds of BAT legislation passing in the U.S. Congress and being signed into law by President Trump this year. The BAT would tax imports into the U.S. and subsidize U.S. exports. This scheme would replace existing corporate income taxes.1 While apparel and energy products likely would be exempt, we think other commodities - chiefly base metals and ags - would be taxed, and would thus alter global trade flows in these commodities over the short run. Longer term, depending on how onerous the BAT legislation is, we would expect retaliatory taxes ex U.S., which could negate the initial benefits to U.S. commodity exporters. In addition, we would expect a stronger USD following passage of a BAT, which would be bearish for commodities generally. At this point it is impossible to know the tax rate that will be imposed on imports, as U.S. Congressional negotiations have yet to begin. President Trump, however, did tell business leaders he met with earlier this week to prepare for a "very major" border tax and significant deregulation, according to the Financial Times.2 The price effects for commodities subject to it are fairly straightforward: domestic prices will increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate). A 20% tax would increase domestic prices by 25%, which would benefit domestic commodity producers, and disadvantage commodity importers. The BAT would incentivize U.S. exports and narrow the U.S. trade deficit, as a result. This would, in theory, rally the USD as well. If the BAT were set at 20%, the USD would, in theory, appreciate by 25%.3 It is early days on the BAT. Based on our in-house assessment, we think the BAT scheme could rally the USD by as much as 15%. This 15% includes the 5% increase in the USD's trade-weighted value we expect this year, absent any BAT effects. A stronger USD would raise the price of commodities subject to the U.S. BAT outside the U.S. in local-currency terms, thus crimping international demand, but encouraging output ex U.S. to increase as local-currency production costs fall. Both effects are decidedly bearish longer term for commodities subject to the BAT. Servicing of USD-denominated debt would become more expensive for EM borrowers, as the USD appreciated, which also would negatively affect income growth. Oil Markets Handle The BAT While we believe oil and apparel will be exempt from a BAT, if such a tax did gain traction in Congress, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures, the U.S. benchmark, likely would trade at a premium to the global Brent benchmark, reversing years-long discount pricing. Indeed, markets already started pricing this potential outcome toward year-end 2016 (Chart of the Week), taking WTI delivering in Dec/17 from a roughly $2.00/bbl discount to parity with Brent, before retreating a bit in recent sessions. Clearly, markets have been attempting to discount the BAT, as the WTI - Brent differential shows, and this will continue as the debate and negotiations on the measure pick up in the near future. A BAT that included oil would super-charge U.S. exports, which already are growing, and domestic production (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekDeferred WTI Trades Flat To Brent Deferred WTI Trades Flat to Brent Deferred WTI Trades Flat to Brent Chart 2A BAT Applied To Oil ##br##Would Super-Charge U.S. Exports A BAT Applied to Oil Would Super-Charge U.S. Exports A BAT Applied to Oil Would Super-Charge U.S. Exports Bottom Line: We would fade any rally in the WTI - Brent spread toward the end 2017, or in the 2018 and '19 deliveries - selling the spread if it rallies significantly above flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl in the differential), given our expectation oil will be exempt from the BAT scheme. A BAT's USD Impact Will Matter For Commodities Generally Odds favor a USD rally - even if apparel and oil are excluded - given the BAT scheme would shrink the U.S. trade deficit. Our House view is the USD was on course to appreciate 5% this year anyway, on the back of the economy's relative performance and a continuation of the Fed's effort to normalize monetary policy. Even with a BAT becoming law in a somewhat watered down form, as our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service anticipate, the USD could rally another 10%, based on our assessment of the impact of the tax scheme. This would encourage higher production ex U.S., where local-currency drilling costs once again would fall (think Russia). And it would seriously dent EM commodity demand, particularly oil and base metals demand, as a stronger USD makes commodities more expensive in local-currency terms ex U.S. (Chart 3). The combination of higher output due to lower costs ex U.S., and lower EM consumption brought about by a stronger USD could unravel the production-cutting accord KSA and Russia agreed last year, as prices weaken once again and producers scramble to make up for lost revenue with higher volumes. Given these effects, there's a good chance the U.S. would see deflationary blowback from this, if oil and base metals prices resume their downtrend (Chart 4). Chart 3A Stronger USD Once Again ##br##Will Weaken Global Oil Prices A Stronger USD Once Again Will Weaken Global Oil Prices A Stronger USD Once Again Will Weaken Global Oil Prices Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Could Drag ##br##Inflation Expectations Lower Lower Oil Prices Could Drag Inflation Expectations Lower Lower Oil Prices Could Drag Inflation Expectations Lower BAT Effects On EM Commodity Demand Oil and base-metals demand are closely aligned with EM income growth. Indeed, the evolution of EM income maps closely to EM oil and base metals demand. This is important for the evolution of the Fed's preferred U.S. inflation gauge, the core PCEPI. Indeed, the co-movement between the core personal consumption expenditures index and EM demand for industrial commodities is extremely high. In earlier research, when we modeled EM oil demand as a function of U.S. financial variables, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWI) is consistent with a 23bp decrease (increase) in consumption. For global base metals, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI corresponds with a 27bp drop (increase) in demand. From this, our general rule of thumb is each 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI is roughly corresponds to a 25bp drop (increase) in EM demand for oil and base metals. We also found a 1% decrease in EM oil demand corresponds to nearly a 50bp decrease in the core PCEPI, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge.4 If the USD appreciates by 15% this year following the imposition of a BAT consistent with our in-house view, the effect on commodity demand and EM economic growth prospects would be unambiguously negative. If this was fully passed through to the core PCEPI, the gauge's yoy rate of change could drop more than 1.5%, pushing the yoy change in the Fed's preferred inflation index to just above zero, from its current level of ~ 1.65% yoy growth. We will be exploring the implications for this on the Fed's monetary policy in next week's publication, when we cover gold markets. However, it is worthwhile noting here that the BAT's effect on commodity prices and EM income could significantly restrain the Fed in its desire to normalize monetary policy. BAT Would Raise Volatility Following passage of a BAT consistent with our aforementioned expectations, higher commodity-price volatility would ensue: A sharply higher USD would crush EM oil and base metals demand. The import tax side of the scheme would incentivize additional supply (and exports) to come on line in the U.S. - domestic prices would rise faster than costs under the BAT - while, ex U.S., local-currency production costs would fall, leading to increased supplies. The import tax side of the BAT will create an umbrella for domestic oil and metals producers to lift prices to U.S. customers, since their only other choice for charging stocks and ore supplies are imports, which would be taxed under the scheme. In and of itself, this would be inflationary for the domestic U.S. economy. The only party that unambiguously wins in the short run in this scenario would be U.S. shale producers and domestic base-metals producers. In the case of the latter, copper, nickel and aluminum producers already supply more than 60% of domestic requirements, suggesting they have room to expand production at the margin, as tax-induced price hikes outpace cost increases (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5U.S. Base Metal Production Could Expand Under A BAT Scheme U.S. Nickel and Copper Exports Could Expand Initially Under A BAT Scheme U.S. Nickel and Copper Exports Could Expand Initially Under A BAT Scheme Unstable Equilibrium At the end of the day, the BAT-induced changes in trade flows represent an unstable equilibrium. Second-round effects following the passage of the BAT - i.e., after the initial lift to domestic U.S. prices arising from the imposition of the BAT - are bearish. Chart 6U.S. Nickel And Copper Exports ##br##Could Expand Initially Under A BAT Scheme Taking A BAT To Commodities Taking A BAT To Commodities Recall that in the first round of price adjustment to the BAT, prices theoretically increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate), which most likely will be faster than the increase in domestic production costs. In the second round of price adjustment, production costs catch up to prices, narrowing profit margins and reducing the free cash flow that supports higher production. Domestic demand in the U.S. for refined products - oil and metals - will fall, as prices to consumers rise (e.g., gasoline prices will increase at the margin in line with the BAT tax rate). Meanwhile, ex U.S., as the local-currency costs of production fall, supply is increasing at the margin. And, the stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex U.S., thus reducing demand. The supply- and demand-side effects combine to lower prices, all else equal. In the case of oil, producers ex U.S. - most likely KSA and the Gulf Arab states, and Russia - would once again find themselves in a fight for market share as U.S. production and exports increased. Markets would, once again, have to contend with rising storage levels and lower prices, as supplies increase at the margin and demand falls. This likely happens in 2018, and would return oil prices to our lower trading range of $40 to $65/bbl. In addition, our central tendency for WTI prices would return to $50/bbl from $55/bbl now. Depending on how OPEC and non-OPEC producers respond to rising U.S. production and falling global demand, the downside volatility we saw in 2016 could easily be repeated in 2018 - 2020. In the case of base metals, China still accounts for ~ 50% of total demand. If the USD strengthens significantly, China's demand - along with other EM demand - will fall as local-currency prices rise. Potentially higher U.S. base metal exports on the back of higher domestic prices supporting expanded U.S. supplies will be competing for market share against, e.g., copper volumes from Chile and Peru displaced from the U.S. market. Bottom Line: The BAT scheme could incentivize higher U.S. production and exports, and rally the USD. Together, these effects would pressure commodity prices lower - particularly oil and base metals - as supply increased and demand decreased. This would lower inflation and inflation expectations, complicating the Fed's policymaking later this year. We will develop these themes in subsequent research. Next week, we take up gold markets and how they are likely to respond to the evolution of BAT legislation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Our colleague Peter Berezin last week published a Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017" in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy, which examined the BAT in depth, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Investors seek clarity from Trump on tax changes and trade restrictions" in the January 24, 2017, issue of the FT. 3 Please see p. 3 of the BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017" cited above, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see pp. 3 and 4 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Commodities Could Be Hit Hard By Fed Rate Hikes" in the September 1, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Taking A BAT To Commodities Taking A BAT To Commodities

Highlights U.S. policy uncertainty has increased again early in the New Year. President Trump's inaugural speech highlighted that he has not tempered his "America First" policy prescription. The Trump/GOP agenda is still a moving target, but three key risks have emerged for financial markets. A border tax could see a 10% rise in the U.S. dollar. It would also be bearish for global bonds and EM stocks. Position accordingly. Second, President Trump has his sights on China. U.S. presidents face few constraints on the trade and foreign policy side. Investors seem to be under-appreciating the risk of a trade war. Third, the plan to slash Federal government spending could completely offset the fiscal stimulus stemming from the proposed tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The good news is that the major countries, including China, appear to have entered a synchronized growth acceleration. There is more to the equity market rally than a "sugar high". The global profit recession is over and the rebound has been even more impressive than we predicted. As long as any U.S. protectionist policies do not derail the growth acceleration, corporate EPS in the major countries should rival (traditionally overly-optimistic) bottom-up expectations in 2017. The Fed will hike three times this year, one more than is discounted. The Bank of Japan will continue to target a 10-year JGB yield of 0%, but the ECB will begin hinting at another taper in the fall. Our bond team tactically took profits on a short-duration position, but expect to move back to below-benchmark duration before long. The U.S. policy backdrop is very fluid but, for now, the new Administration has boosted confidence and thereby reinforced a global cyclical upswing. As long as protectionist policies implemented this year do not unduly undermine U.S. growth (our base case), then stocks will beat bonds by a wide margin. Investors should consider long VIX positions, but add to equity exposure on dips. Feature It has become a cliché to describe the economic and financial market outlook as "unusually uncertain". Since 2007, investors have had to deal with rolling financial crises, deleveraging, recession, deflation pressures, quantitative easing, negative interest rates, re-regulation, a collapse in oil prices and Brexit. Chart I-1Stocks Decouple From Policy Uncertainty Stocks Decouple From Policy Uncertainty Stocks Decouple From Policy Uncertainty Now, there is Donald Trump. The new President's inaugural speech highlighted that he has not tempered his "America First" policy prescription. Protectionism, de-regulation and tax reform are high on the agenda but details are scant, leaving investors with very little visibility. There are many policy proposals floating around that have conflicting potential effects on financial markets. Which ones will actually be pursued and how will they be prioritized? Is the U.S. prepared to fight a trade war? Is a border tax likely? Will President Trump push for a "Plaza Accord" deal with China? Even the prospect for fiscal stimulus is a moving target because the Trump Administration is reportedly considering a plan to slash Federal spending by $10 trillion over the next decade! Some have described the global equity rally as just a "sugar high" that will soon fade. No doubt, some of the potentially growth-enhancing parts of the Trump agenda have been discounted in risk assets. Given the highly uncertain policy backdrop, it would be easy to recommend that investors err on the side of caution if the U.S. and global economies were still stuck in the mud. The level of the S&P 500 appears elevated based on its relationship with the policy uncertainty index (shown inverted in Chart I-1). Nonetheless, what complicates matters is that there is more to the equity rally than simply hope. Both growth and profits are surprising to the upside in what appears to be a synchronized global upturn. If one could take U.S. policy uncertainty out of the equation, risk assets are in an economic sweet spot where the deflation threat is waning, but inflation is not enough of a threat to warrant removing the monetary punchbowl. Indeed, the Fed will proceed cautiously and official bond purchases will continue through the year in Japan and the Eurozone. We begin this month's Overview with two key protectionist policies being considered that could have important market implications. We then turn to the good news on the economic and earnings front. The conclusion is that we remain positive on risk assets and bearish bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon. It will likely be a rough ride, but investors should use equity pullbacks to add exposure. Protectionism Risk #1 A U.S. border tax has suddenly emerged on the U.S. policy program. More formally, it is called a destination-based cash flow tax. Under current U.S. law, corporate income taxes are assessed on worldwide profits, which are the difference the between worldwide revenues and worldwide costs. The introduction of a border tax adjustment would change the tax system to one where taxes are assessed only on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs (i.e., revenues derived in the U.S. minus costs incurred the U.S.). The mechanics are fairly complicated and we encourage interested clients to read a Special Report on the topic from BCA's Global Investment Strategy service.1 The result would be a significant increase in taxes on imported goods and a reduction in taxes paid by exporters. One benefit is that the border tax would generate a large amount of revenue for the Treasury, which could be used to offset the cost of corporate tax cuts. Another benefit is that the tax change would eliminate the use of international "transfer pricing" strategies that allow American companies to avoid paying tax. In theory, the dollar would appreciate by enough to offset the tax paid by importers and the tax advantage gained by exporters, leaving the trade balance and the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy largely unchanged. A 20% border tax, for example, would require an immediate 25% jump in the dollar to level the playing field! In reality, there are reasons to believe that the dollar's adjustment would not be fully offsetting. First, much depends on how the Fed responds. Second, some central banks would take steps to limit the dollar's ascent. To the extent that the dollar did not rise by the full amount (25% in our example), then the border tax would boost exports and curtail imports. The resulting tailwind for U.S. growth would eventually be reflected in higher inflation to the extent that the economy is already near full employment. The result is that a border tax would be bullish the dollar and bearish for bonds. Our base case is that a 20% border tax would lift the dollar by about 10% over a 12-month period, above and beyond our current forecast of a 5% gain. The 10-year Treasury yield could reach 3% in this scenario. Subjectively, we assign a 50% probability to a border tax being introduced in some form or another, although our sense is that it will be somewhat watered down so as not to generate major dislocations for the economy. It appears that investors are underestimating the likelihood that the U.S. proceeds with this new tax, suggesting that the risks to the dollar and bond yields are to the upside. This is another reason to underweight U.S. bonds relative to Bunds on a currency-hedged basis. For stocks, any growth boost from the border tax would benefit corporate profits, at least until the Fed responded with a faster pace of rate hikes. It is another story for EM equities as a shrinking U.S. trade deficit implies less demand for EM products and shrinking international dollar liquidity. A border tax could be seen as the first volley in a global trade war, souring investor sentiment towards EM stocks. Another major upleg in the U.S. dollar could also spark a financial crisis in some EM countries with current account deficits and substantial dollar-denominated debt. Protectionism Risk #2 Chart I-2Trade War Risk Is Elevated Trade War Risk Is Elevated Trade War Risk Is Elevated While President Trump wants a smaller trade deficit generally, he has his sights on China because of the elevated U.S. bilateral trade deficit (Chart I-2). His choices for Commerce Secretary, National Trade Council and U.S. Trade Representative are all China critics. U.S. presidents face few constraints on the trade and foreign policy side. He can order tariffs on specific goods, or even impose a surcharge on all dutiable goods, as Nixon did in 1971. Congress is unlikely to be a stumbling block. Trump's election was a signal that the U.S. populace wants protectionist policies. His electoral strategy succeeded in great part because of voter demand for protectionism in key Midwestern states. We expect the Trump Administration to give a largely symbolic "shot across China's bow" in the first 100 days, setting the stage for formal trade negotiations in the subsequent months. The initial shot will likely rattle markets. A calming period will follow, but this will only give a false sense of security. The U.S. is in a relatively good negotiating position because China's exports to the U.S. are much larger than U.S. exports to China. However, tensions over the "One China" policy and international access to the South China Sea will greatly complicate the trade negotiations. The bottom line is that there is little hope that U.S./China relations will proceed smoothly.2 A long position in the VIX is prudent given that the market does not appear to be adequately discounting the possibility of a trade war. Synchronized Global Growth Upturn While the U.S. policy backdrop has become more problematic for investors, the global economic and profit picture has brightened considerably. We were predicting a pickup in global growth before last November's election based on our leading indicators and the ebbing of some headwinds that had weighed on economic activity early in 2016. As expected, the manufacturing sector is bouncing back after a protracted inventory destocking phase. The stabilization in commodity prices has given some relief to emerging market manufacturers. The drag on global growth from capex cuts in the energy patch is moderating even though the level of capital spending will contract again in 2017. Moreover, the aggregate fiscal thrust for the advanced economies turned positive in 2016 for the first time in six years. The major countries, including China, appear to have entered a synchronized growth acceleration. The pick-up is confirmed by recent data on industrial production, purchasing managers' surveys and the ZEW survey (Chart I-3). The global ZEW composite has been a good indicator for world earnings revisions and the global stock-to-bond return ratio. The synchronized uptick in global coincident and leading economic data, including business and consumer confidence, suggests that there is more going on than a simple post-election euphoria. Euro Area sentiment measures hooked up at the end of 2016 and the acceleration in growth appears to be broadly based (Chart I-4). A simple model based on the PMI suggests that Eurozone growth could be as much as 2% this year, which is well above trend. Chart I-3Positive Global Indicators bca.bca_mp_2017_02_01_s1_c3 bca.bca_mp_2017_02_01_s1_c3 Chart I-4Euro Area To Beat Growth Estimates Euro Area To Beat Growth Estimates Euro Area To Beat Growth Estimates While Japan will not be a major contributor to overall global growth given its well-known structural economic impediments, the most recent data reveal a slight uptick in consumer confidence, business confidence and the leading economic indicator (Chart I-5). We have noted the impressive rebound in China's leading and coincident growth indicators for some time. Some indicators are consistent with real GDP growth well in excess of the 6.7% official growth figure for 2016 Q4. Both the OECD leading indicator and our proprietary GDP growth model are calling for faster growth in 2017 (Chart I-6). A potential increase in trade or even military tensions between China and the U.S. is a potential risk to this sunny picture. Nonetheless, given what we know about the underlying economy at the moment, China looks poised to deliver another year of solid growth. Chart I-5Even Japanese Sentiment Is Turning Up Even Japanese Sentiment Is Turning Up Even Japanese Sentiment Is Turning Up Chart I-6Upside Risk To China's Growth Upside Risk To China's Growth Upside Risk To China's Growth In the U.S., President Trump appears to be stirring long-dormant animal spirits. CEOs are much more upbeat and several regional Fed surveys indicate a surge in investment intentions (Chart I-7). Spending on capital goods has the potential to soar given the historical relationship with the survey data shown in Chart I-8 (the caveat being that Congress will need to deliver). Even the long depressed small business sector is suddenly more optimistic. The December reading of the NFIB survey showed a spike in confidence, with capital expenditures, hiring plans and overall optimism returning to levels not seen in this expansion. Chart I-7Animal Spirits Reviving In The U.S.... Animal Spirits Reviving In The U.S.... Animal Spirits Reviving In The U.S.... Chart I-8...Which Will Spark Capital Spending ...Which Will Spark Capital Spending ...Which Will Spark Capital Spending There is a good chance that a deal between the White House and Congress on tax reform will occur in the first half of 2017, including a major tax windfall for the business sector that would boost the after-tax rate of return on equity. Nonetheless, past research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles only get underway once businesses see clear evidence that consumer demand is on the upswing. In other words, consumers need to move first. On that score, a number of cyclical tailwinds have aligned for household spending. Credit scores have largely been repaired since the recession and income growth is on track to accelerate (Chart I-9). Despite a moderation in monthly payrolls, overall income growth is likely to stay perky, now that wage gains are on an upward path. And, importantly, various surveys highlight an improvement over the past year in consumer confidence about long-term job prospects. The propensity to spend rather than save is higher when households feel secure in their jobs. Chart I-10 highlights that the saving rate tends to decline when confidence is elevated. The wealth effect from previous equity and housing price gains has been a tailwind for some time but, until now, consumers have held back because it seemed to many that the recession had never ended. Chart I-9Share Of Home Mortgage Borrowers ##br##Who Recovered Pre-Delinquency Credit Score After Foreclosure February 2017 February 2017 Chart I-10Room For U.S. Consumer To Spend Room For U.S. Consumer To Spend Room For U.S. Consumer To Spend In other words, there are increasing signs that the scar tissue from the Great Recession is finally fading, at a time when tax cuts are on the way. We expect that U.S. real GDP growth will be in the 2½-3% range this year with risks to the upside, as long as the Trump Administration does not start a trade war that undermines confidence. Corporate Earnings Liftoff Chart I-11Profits Are Bouncing Back Profits Are Bouncing Back Profits Are Bouncing Back The good news on the economy carries over to corporate earnings. The profit recession is over and the rebound has been even more impressive than we predicted (Chart I-11). Eurozone EPS "went vertical" near the end of 2016. Blended S&P 500 Q4 bottom-up estimates reveal a huge increase in EPS last year to $109 (4-quarter trailing), providing an 8.5% growth rate for 2016 as a whole. The 4-quarter trailing growth figure will likely surge again to 16% in 2017 Q1, even if the sequential EPS figure is flat. Some of the growth acceleration is technical, reflecting a particularly sharp drop in profits at the end of 2015 (which will eventually fall out of the annual growth calculation). Of course, a spike in energy earnings on the back of higher oil prices made a major contribution to the overall growth rate, but there is more to it than that. Consumer Discretionary, Financials and Health Care all posted solid earnings figures last year. Earnings momentum has also picked up in Materials, Real Estate and Utilities, although profit growth in these sectors is benefiting from favorable comparisons. Dollar strength has pushed the U.S. earnings revisions ratio slightly into negative territory, while revisions have surged into positive terrain in the other major markets (Chart I-12). The sharp upturn in our short-term EPS indicators corroborates the more upbeat earnings outlook for at least the next few months (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Earnings Revisions Earnings Revisions Earnings Revisions Chart I-13Short-Term EPS Indicators Are Bullish Short-Term EPS Indicators Are Bullish Short-Term EPS Indicators Are Bullish Our medium-term profit models also paint a constructive picture for equities. These are top-down macro models that include oil prices, exchange rates, industrial production (to capture top-line dynamics), and the difference between nominal GDP and labor compensation (to capture margin effects). Given our more optimistic economic view, the model forecasts for 2017 EPS growth have been revised higher for the global aggregate and each of the major developed markets (Chart I-14). The U.S. is tricky because of the impact of comparison effects that will add volatility to the quarterly growth profile as we move through the year. We are now calling for a 10% gain for 2017 as a whole, which is just shy of the roughly 12% increase expected by bottom-up analysts. This is impressive because actual market expectations are typically well below the perennially-optimistic bottom-up estimates. A 10% EPS growth figure might seem overly optimistic in light of the dollar appreciation that has occurred since last November. Some CEOs will no doubt guide down 2017 estimates during the current earning season. However, in terms of EPS growth, the annual change in the dollar matters more than its level. Chart I-15 shows that the year-over-year rate of change in the dollar is moderating despite the recent rise in the level. This is reflected in a diminishing dollar drag on EPS growth as estimated by our model (bottom panel in Chart I-15). We highlighted in the December 2016 monthly report that it does not require a major growth acceleration to overwhelm the negative impact of a rising dollar on earnings. Chart I-14Medium-Term Profit Models Are Also Bullish Medium-Term Profit Models Are Also Bullish Medium-Term Profit Models Are Also Bullish Chart I-15Dollar Effect On U.S. EPS Dollar Effect On U.S. EPS Dollar Effect On U.S. EPS The models for Japan and the Eurozone point to 2017 EPS growth in the mid-teens. Both are roughly in line with bottom-up estimates which, if confirmed this year, would be quite bullish for stock indexes. Keep in mind that these projections do not include our base case forecast that the U.S. dollar will appreciate by another 5% this year (more if a border tax is enacted). Incorporating a 5% dollar appreciation would trim U.S. EPS growth by 1 percentage point and add the same amount to profit growth in Japan and the Eurozone. The bottom line is that we expect corporate profits to be constructive for global bourses this year. Within an overweight allocation to equities in the advanced economies, we continue to favor the European and Japanese markets versus the U.S. As we discussed in the 2017 Outlook, political risks in the Eurozone are overblown. Currency movements and relative monetary policies will work against U.S. stocks on a relative (currency hedged) basis. FOMC: Hawks Gradually Winning The Debate Fed officials are in a state of quandary over how the policies of the incoming Administration will affect the growth and inflation outlook. Nevertheless, the last FOMC Minutes confirmed that the consensus on the Committee is still shifting in a less dovish/more hawkish direction. The tone of the discussion was decidedly upbeat, especially on the manufacturing and capital spending outlook. "Most" of the meeting participants felt that the U.S. economy has reached full employment, although there is still an ongoing debate on the benefits and costs of allowing the unemployment rate to temporarily move below estimates of full employment. Running the economy "hot" for a while might draw more discouraged workers back into the workforce and thereby expand the supply side of the economy. Other members, however, highlight that past attempts by the Fed to fine tune the economy in this way have always ended in recession. Our view is that the FOMC will not follow the Bank of Japan's example and explicitly target a temporary inflation overshoot. Conversely, the Fed will not attempt to pre-emptively offset any forthcoming fiscal stimulus either (if indeed there is any net fiscal stimulus). Policymakers will watch the labor market and, especially, wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. Core PCE inflation is roughly 30 basis points below target and has only edged erratically higher over the past year. The pickup in shelter inflation has been largely offset by falling core goods prices, reflecting previous dollar strength. We expect shelter inflation to soon flatten off, but goods prices will continue to contract if the dollar rises by another 5% this year. Year-ago comparison effects will also depress the annual rate of change over the next couple of months. However, the key to the underlying inflation trend will be wage pressures, which are most highly correlated with the non-shelter part of the service component. Up until recently, the structural and cyclical forces acting on wage gains were pulling in the same downward direction. Structural factors include automation and population aging; as high-paid older workers leave the workforce, the vast majority of new entrants to full-time employment do so at below-median wages, putting downward pressure on median earnings growth.3 These structural factors will not disappear anytime soon, but the cyclical forces have clearly shifted. The main measures of U.S. wage growth are all trending higher. Excess labor market slack appears to have been largely absorbed. Only the number of people working part time for economic reasons suggests that there is some residual slack remaining. To what extent will cyclical wage pressures exert upward pressure on inflation? That will depend on the ability of companies to raise prices in order to protect profit margins. Wage inflation trends do not lead, and sometimes diverge from, inflation in goods and services. Theory suggests that there is a two-way relationship between wages and prices. Sometimes inflation starts in the labor market and spills over into consumer prices (cost-push inflation), and sometimes it is the other way around (demand-pull inflation). At the moment, the corporate sector appears to have limited ability to pass on rising wage costs. Balancing off the opposing factors, we believe that core PCE inflation will grind higher and should be near the 2% target by year end. This would end the Fed's debate over whether to run the economy hot, helping to keep upward pressure on Treasury yields. Bond Bear To Return Chart I-16Watch Bond Technicals To Short Again Watch Bond Technicals To Short Again Watch Bond Technicals To Short Again Global yields troughed a full four months before the U.S. election. As discussed above, the U.S. and global economies were showing signs of increased vigor even before Trump won the Presidency. The new President's policies reinforce the bond-bearish backdrop, especially protectionism and fiscal stimulus, at a time when the economy is already near full employment. Long-term inflation expectations imbedded in bond yields have shifted up in recent months across the major markets. Real yields have been volatile, but generally have not changed much from late last year. We remain modest bond bears over a 6-12 month horizon. Inflation and inflation expectations will continue to grind higher in the major markets and we expect the FOMC to deliver three rate hikes in 2017, one more than is discounted in the Treasury market. A rise in 10-year TIPS breakevens into a range that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target (2.4%-2.5% based on history) would be a strong signal that the Fed will soon lift the 'dot plot.' ECB bond purchases will limit the increases in the real component of core European yields, but any additional weakness in the euro would result in a rise in European inflation. The ECB was able to announce a tapering of monthly purchases last year while avoiding a bond rout by extending the QE program to the end of 2017, but this will be more difficult to pull off again if inflation is on the rise and growth remains above-trend this year. We expect the ECB to provide hints in September that it will further taper its QE program early in 2018. Thus, the Eurozone bond market could take over from U.S. Treasurys as the main driver of the global bond bear market late in 2017. The Japanese economy is also performing impressively well, reducing the probability of a "helicopter drop" policy. The dollar's surge has depressed the yen and lifted inflation expectations, relieving some pressure on PM Abe to ramp up fiscal spending beyond what is already included in the supplementary budgets. In any event, the BoJ will keep the 10-year yield pinned near to zero, limiting the upside for bond yields to some extent in the other major bond markets. That said, we are neutral on JGBs, not overweight, because most of the yield curve is in negative territory. We remain overweight Bunds versus both Treasurys and JGBs on a currency-hedged basis. In terms of the duration call, our bond strategists felt in early December that the global bond selloff had progressed too far, too fast (Chart I-16). They recommended temporarily taking profits on short-duration positons and shifting to benchmark, which turned out to be excellent timing. Yields have drifted lower since then and the technicals have improved enough to warrant shifting back to below-benchmark duration. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17A Better Growth ##br##Backdrop For USD Strength A Better Growth Backdrop For USD Strength A Better Growth Backdrop For USD Strength Equity markets have gone into a holding pattern as investors weigh heightened U.S. policy risk against the improving profit and global macro backdrop. The latter appears to have broken the Fed policy loop that had been in place for some time. Expectations for a less dovish Fed helped to drive the dollar and Treasury yields higher late in 2016. But, rather than sparking a correction in risk assets as has been the case in recent years, stock indexes surged to new highs (Chart I-17). The difference this time is that there has been a meaningful improvement in the growth and profit outlook that has overwhelmed the negative impact of a stronger dollar and higher borrowing rates. The protectionist policies currently being considered are clearly dollar bullish, and bearish for global bonds and EM stocks. Investors should be positioned accordingly. It is more complicated for stocks. The passing of a major tax reform package would no doubt buttress the budding revival in private sector animal spirits, but a nasty trade war has the potential to do the opposite. The multitude of policy proposals floating around greatly complicate asset allocation. It is a very fluid situation but, for now, the new Administration has boosted confidence and thereby reinforced a global cyclical upswing. As long as protectionist policies implemented this year do not unduly undermine global growth (our base case), then corporate earnings growth will be solid in 2017 and stocks will beat bonds by a wide margin. We wish to be clear, though, that equities are on the expensive side in most of the main markets. This means that overweighting equities and underweighting cash and bonds in a balanced global portfolio is essentially playing an equity overshoot. It may end badly, but the overshoot is likely to persist for as long as the economic and profit upswing persists. Investors should consider long VIX positions, but add to equity exposure on dips. Our view on corporate bonds is unchanged this month. Poor value and deteriorating corporate balance sheet health make it difficult to recommend anything more than a benchmark position in the U.S. relative to Treasurys. However, investors can pick up a little spread in the Eurozone corporate bond market, where balance sheet health is better and the ECB is soaking up supply. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 26, 2017 Next Report: February 23, 2017 1 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017. BCA Global Investment Strategy service, January 20, 2017. 2 For more information, please see: Trump, Day one: Let the Trade War Begin. BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, January 18, 2017. 3 For more information in the structural and cyclical wage pressures, please see: U.S. Wage Growth: Paid in Full? U.S. Investment Strategy Service, November 28, 2016. II. Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg? The spike in bond yields since the U.S. election has focussed investor attention on the economic implications of higher borrowing costs. In this world of nose-bleed debt levels, it seems self-evident that certain parts of the global economy will be ultra-sensitive to rising rates. The "cash flow" effect on debt service is a headwind for growth as rising interest payments trim the cash available to spend on goods and services. Some market commentators believe that the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates much because the cash-flow effect will be so severe this time that it will quickly derail the economic expansion. However, a number of factors make projecting interest payments complicated, such that back-of-the-envelope estimates are quite misleading. In order to provide a sense of the size of the cash-flow effect, in this Special Report we estimate the sensitivity of interest payments to changes in borrowing rates in the corporate, household and government sectors for four of the major economies. The key finding is that interest burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100 basis points from today's levels. It would require a 300 basis point jump to really "move the dial". Interest rate shocks are more dramatic for the Japanese government interest burden due to the size of the JGB debt mountain, but much of the interest payments would simply make the round trip to the Bank of Japan and back again. We are not downplaying the risks posed by the rapid accumulation of debt since the Great Recession. Rather, our aim is to provide investors with a sense of the debt-service implications of a further rise in borrowing rates. Our main point is that the cash-flow effect of higher interest rates should not be included in the list of reasons for believing that Fed officials will be quickly thwarted if they proceed with their rate hike plan over the next couple of years. Investors are justifiably worried that the bond selloff will get ahead of itself, spark an economic setback and a corresponding flight out of risk assets. After all, there have been several head fakes during this recovery during which rising bond yields on the back of improving data and optimism were followed by an economic soft patch and a risk-off phase in financial markets. In this world of nose-bleed debt levels, it seems self-evident that certain parts of the global economy will be ultra-sensitive to rising rates. Indeed, global debt has swollen by 41½ percentage points of GDP since 2007 (Chart II-1). Households, corporations and governments tried to deleverage simultaneously to varying degrees in the major countries since the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, but few have been successful. Households in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland have managed to reduce the level of debt relative to income. U.K. and Japanese corporations are also less geared today relative to 2007. Outside of these areas, leverage has generally increased in the private and public sectors (see Chart II-2 and the Appendix Charts beginning on page 37). The astonishing pile-up of debt in China has been particularly alarming for the investment community (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Leverage Has Increased Since 2007 Leverage Has Increased Since 2007 Leverage Has Increased Since 2007 Chart II-2Leverage In Advanced Economies Leverage In Advanced Economies Leverage In Advanced Economies Chart II-3China's Alarming Debt Pile-Up China's Alarming Debt Pile-Up China's Alarming Debt Pile-Up Governments can be excused to some extent for continuing to run fiscal deficits because automatic stabilizers require extra spending on social programs when unemployment is high. Fiscal policy was forced to at least partially offset the drain on aggregate demand from private sector deleveraging, or risk a replay of the Great Depression. More generally, history shows that it is extremely difficult for any one sector or country to deleverage when other sectors and countries are doing the same. The slow rate of nominal income growth makes the job that much harder. Borrowing Rates And The Economy There are several ways in which higher borrowing rates can affect the economy. Households will be incentivized to save rather than spend at the margin. Borrowing costs surpass hurdle rates for new investment projects, causing the business sector to trim capital spending. Uncertainty associated with rising rates might also undermine confidence for both households and firms, reinforcing the negative impact on demand. Banks, fearing a growth slowdown ahead and rising delinquencies, may tighten lending standards and thereby limit credit availability. These negative forces are normally a headwind for growth, but not something that outweighs the positive Keynesian dynamics of rising wages, profits and employment until real borrowing rates reach high levels. However, if the neutral or "equilibrium" level of interest rate is still extremely low today, then it may not require much of a rise in market rates to tip the economy over. A lot depends on confidence, which has been quite fragile in the post-Lehman world. The "cash flow" effect on debt service is another headwind for growth as rising interest payments trim the cash available to spend on goods and services. For the government sector, a swelling interest burden will add to the budget deficit and may place pressure on the fiscal authorities to cut back on spending in other areas. Some market commentators believe that the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates much because the cash-flow effect will quickly derail the expansion in the U.S. and potentially in other countries as the Treasury market selloff drags up yields across the global bond market. This is an argument that has circulated at the beginning of every Fed tightening cycle as far back as we can remember. Some even predict that central banks will be forced to use financial repression for an extended period to prevent the interest burden from skyrocketing and thereby short-circuiting the economic expansion. Back-of-the-envelope estimates that simply apply a 100 or 200 basis point increase in borrowing rates to the level of outstanding debt, for example, imply a shocking rise in the debt service burdens. Fed rate hikes could be analogous to the iceberg that took down the Titanic in 1912. Key Drivers Of Interest Sensitivity However, back-of-the-envelope calculations like the one described above paint an overly pessimistic picture for three reasons. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low (Chart II-4). These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China.1 Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years (Chart II-5). The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5-years and more in some countries. Households have been extending the maturity structure of their debt in recent decades (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Chart II-4Debt Service Has Generally Declined Debt Service Has Generally Declined Debt Service Has Generally Declined Chart II-5Average Maturity Of Debt Is Long Average Maturity Of Debt Is Long Average Maturity Of Debt Is Long Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100 basis points in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). In this Special Report, we estimate the sensitivity of interest payments to changes in borrowing rates in the corporate, household and government sectors for four of the major economies. We could not include China in this month's analysis because data limitations precluded any degree of accuracy, but the sheer size of China's debt mountain justifies continued research in this area. The key finding is that interest burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates rise immediately by 100 basis points from today's levels. It would require a 300 basis point rise in yield curves to really "move the dial" in terms of the cash-flow impact on spending. An interest rate shock of that size would be particularly dramatic for the Japanese government interest burden given the size of its debt mountain, but much of the interest payments would simply make the round trip to the Bank of Japan and back again. Consumer Sector U.S. households have worked hard at deleveraging since their net worth was devastated by the housing bust. Still, the overall debt-to-income level is elevated by historical standards. U.S. household leverage has generally trended higher since the Second World War and has been a source of angst for investors as far back as the late 1950s. Yet, we find no evidence that U.S. consumers have become more sensitive to changes in borrowing rates over the decades.2 This counter-intuitive result partially reflects the fact that consumers have partially insulated themselves from rising interest rates by adopting a greater proportion of fixed-rate debt. The bottom panel of Chart II-6 presents the two-year change in debt service payments expressed as a percent of income (i.e. the swing or the "cash flow" effect). The fact that these swings have not grown over time suggest that the cash-flow effect of changes in interest rates on debt service has not increased.3 Chart II-6U.S. Consumers Have Not Become More Sensitive To Interest Rates U.S. Consumers Have Not Become More Sensitive To Interest Rates U.S. Consumers Have Not Become More Sensitive To Interest Rates Another way to demonstrate this point is to compare disposable income growth with a measure of "discretionary" disposable income that subtracts debt service payments (Chart II-6, top panel). This is the amount of money left over after debt servicing to purchase goods and services. The annual rate of growth in disposable income and discretionary income are nearly identical. In other words, growth in spending power is determined almost exclusively by changes in the components of income (wages, hours and employment). Moreover, the fact that some households are net receivers of interest income provides some offset to rising interest payments for other households when rates go up. This conclusion applies to households in the other major countries as well. Charts II-7 to II-10 present projections for household interest payments as a percent of GDP under three scenarios: no change in yield curves, an immediate 100 basis point parallel shift up in the yield curve and a 300 basis point shift. Assuming an immediate increase in yields across the curve is overly blunt, but the scenarios are only meant to provide a sense of how much interest payments could rise on a medium-term horizon (say, one to five years). The exact timing is less important. Chart II-7U.S. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection U.S. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection U.S. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-8U.K. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection U.K. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection U.K. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-9Japan Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Japan Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Japan Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-10Eurozone Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Eurozone Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Eurozone Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Unsurprisingly, household interest payments as a fraction of GDP are flat-to-slightly lower in "no change" interest rate scenario for the major countries. The interest burden increases by roughly 1 percentage point in the 100 basis point shock, although the level remains well below the pre-Lehman peak in the U.S., U.K. and Eurozone. In Japan, the interest payments ratio returns to levels last seen in the late 1990s, although this is not particularly onerous. A 300 basis point shock would see interest burdens ramp up to near, or above, the pre-Lehman peak in all economies except in the U.K. For the latter, borrowing rates would still be below the 2007 peak even if they rise by 300 basis points from current levels. This scenario would see the household interest burden surge well above 3% of GDP in Japan, a level that exceeds the entire history of the Japanese series back to the early 1990s. Also shown in the bottom panel of Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10 is the associated 2-year swing in interest expense as a percent of GDP under the three scenarios. The 2-year swing moves into positive (i.e. restrictive) territory for all economies under the 100 basis point shock, although they remain in line with previous monetary tightening cycles. It is only for the 300 basis point scenario that the cash-flow effect appears threatening in terms of consumer spending power over the next two years. Corporate Sector The starting point for interest payments and overall debt-service in the corporate sector is also quite low by historical standards, although less so in the U.S. Falling interest rates have been partially offset by the rapid accumulation of American company debt in recent years. We modeled national accounts data for non-financial corporate interest paid using the stock of corporate bonds, loans and (where relevant) commercial paper, together with the associated interest or coupon rates. The model simply sums interest payments across these types of debt to generate a grand total, after accounting for the maturity structure of the loans and debt. Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13 and Chart II-14 present the three yield curve scenarios for corporate interest payments. The interest burden is flat-to-somewhat lower if yield curves are unchanged, as old loans and bonds continue to roll over at today's depressed levels. Even if market yields jump by 100 basis points tomorrow, the resulting interest burdens would rise roughly back to 2012-2014 levels in the U.S., Eurozone and the U.K., which would still be quite low by historical standards. The resulting two-year cash-flow effect is modest overall. The rate increase feeds into corporate interest payments somewhat more quickly in the Eurozone and Japan because of the relatively shorter average maturity of the corporate debt market, but a shock of this size does not appear threatening to either economy. Chart II-11U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-12U.K. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection U.K. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection U.K. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-13Eurozone Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Eurozone Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Eurozone Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-14Japan Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Japan Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Japan Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection It is a different story if yields rise by 300 basis points. The interest ratio approaches previous peaks set in the 2000s in the U.S. and Eurozone. The interest ratio rises sharply for the U.K. corporate sector as well, although it stays below the 2000 peak because interest rates were even higher 17 years ago. Japanese companies would also feel significant pain as the interest ratio rises back to where it was in the late 1990s. Government Sector Government finances are not at much risk from a modest increase in bond yields either (Chart II-15). We focus on the level of the interest burden rather than the cash-flow effect for the government sector since changes in interest payments probably have less impact on governments' near-term spending plans than is the case for the private sector. Chart II-15Government Sector Interest Payment Projection Government Sector Interest Payment Projection Government Sector Interest Payment Projection As discussed above, Treasury departments in the U.K., Eurozone and Japan have taken advantage of ultra-low borrowing rates by extending the average maturity of public debt. The average maturity of the Barclays U.K. government bond index has extended to 16 years, while it is close to 10 years in Japan and the Eurozone (Chart II-5). The U.S. Treasury has not followed suit; the Barclays U.S. index is about 7½ years in maturity. The lengthy average maturity means that index coupon rates will continue to fall for years to come if rates are unchanged in the U.K., Japan and the Eurozone, resulting in a declining interest burden. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, the interest burden is roughly flat as a percent of GDP for the U.K. and Eurozone, and rises only modestly in Japan. The limited impact reflects the fact that the starting point for current yields is well below the average coupon on the stock of government debt. In contrast, the U.S. interest burden is roughly flat in the "no change" scenario, and rises by a half percentage point by 2025 in the 100 basis point shock scenario. Keep in mind that we took the neutral assumption that the stock of government debt grows at the same pace as nominal GDP growth. This assumes that governments deal effectively with the impact of aging populations on entitlement programs in the coming years. As many studies have shown, debt levels will balloon if entitlements are not adjusted and/or taxes are not raised to cover rising health care and pension costs. We do not wish to downplay this long-term risk, but we are focused on the impact of higher interest rates on interest expense over the next five years for the purposes of this Special Report. As with the household and corporate sectors, the pain becomes much more serious in the event of a 300 basis point rise in interest rates. Interest payments rise by about 1 percentage point of GDP in the U.S. and U.K. to high levels by historically standards. It takes a decade for the full effect to unfold, although the ratios rise quickly in the early years as the short-term debt adjusts rapidly to the higher rate environment. For the Eurozone, the roughly 100 basis points rise takes the level of the interest burden back to about 2003 levels (i.e. it does not exceed the previous peak). Given Japan's extremely high government debt-to-GDP ratio, it is not surprising that a 300 basis point rise in interest rates would generate a whopping surge in the interest burden from near zero to almost 5% of GDP by the middle of the next decade. Nonetheless, this paints an overly pessimistic picture for two reasons. First, the Bank of Japan is likely to hold short-term rates close to zero for years as the authorities struggle to reach the 2% inflation target. This means that only long-term JGB yields have room to move higher in the event of a continued global bond selloff. Second, 40% of the JGB market is held by the central bank and this proportion will continue to rise until the Bank of Japan's QE program ends. Interest paid to the BoJ simply flows back to the Ministry of Finance. The net interest payments data used in our analysis are provided by the OECD. These data net out interest payments made between all arms of the government except for the central bank. The implication is that rising global bond yields in the coming years will not place the Japanese government under any fiscal strain. The same is true in the U.S., U.K. and Eurozone, where the respective central banks also hold a large portion of the stock of government debt (although this conclusion does not necessarily apply to the peripheral European governments). Conclusion The spike in bond yields since the U.S. election has focussed investor attention on the economic implications of higher borrowing costs given the sea of debt that has accumulated. As discussed in our 2017 BCA Outlook, we believe that the secular bond bull market is over but foresee only a gradual uptrend in yields in the coming years. Inflation is likely to remain subdued in the major countries and bond supply will continue to be absorbed by the ECB and Bank of Japan. The stock of government bonds available to the private sector will drop by $750 billion in 2017 for the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and the U.K. as a group. This follows a contraction of $546 billion in 2016. Forward guidance from the BoJ and ECB will also help to cap the upside for global bond yields. Still, we believe that the combination of gradually rising U.S. inflation, Fed rate hikes and the Trump fiscal stimulus plan will push Treasury yields above current forward rates in 2017. Other bond markets will outperform in local currency terms, but will suffer losses via contagion from the U.S. Despite the dizzying amount of debt accumulated since the Great Recession, it does not appear that debt service will sink the economies of the advanced economies as the Fed continues to normalize U.S. monetary policy. Debt service will rise from a low starting point and the swing in interest payments as a percent of GDP is unlikely to exceed previous cycles on a 2-year horizon for a 100 basis point rise in yields. The level of the interest payments/GDP ratio should not exceed previous peaks in most cases. The picture is much more threatening if yields were to surge by 300 basis points over the next couple of years, although this scenario would require an unexpected acceleration of inflation in the U.S. and/or the other advanced economies. We are not making the case that the buildup of debt is benign. Academic research has linked excessive leverage with slower trend economic growth and a higher risk of financial crisis. For governments, elevated debt can result in a rising risk premium that will crowd out spending in important areas, such as health and pensions, in the long run. For consumers and the corporate sector, excessive leverage could result in financial distress and a spike in defaults in the next downturn, reinforcing the contraction in output. The Bank for International Settlements agrees: "Increased household indebtedness, in and of itself, is not likely to be the source of a negative shock to the economy. Rather the primary macroeconomic implication of higher debt levels will be to amplify shocks to the economy coming from other sources, particularly those that affect household incomes, most notably rises in unemployment." 4 Debt lies at the heart of BCA's longstanding Debt Supercycle thesis. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness for monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Fed and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit upcycle. That all ended with the 2007-09 meltdown. Since then, even zero policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed countries because the starting point for leverage is already elevated. Growth headwinds finally appear to be ebbing, at least in the U.S., prompting the FOMC to begin the process of "normalizing" short-term interest rates. The U.S. economy could suffer another setback in 2017 for a number of reasons. Nonetheless, the key point of this report is that the cash-flow effect of rising interest rates should not be included in the list of reasons for believing that Fed officials will be quickly thwarted if they proceed with their rate hike plan over the next couple of years. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 For China, the BIS only provides an estimate of the debt service ratio for the household and non-financial corporate sectors combined. 2 See: U.S. Consumer Titanic Meets the Fed Iceberg? The BCA U.S. Fixed Income Analyst, July 2004. 3 The absence of a rise in volatility of the cash flow effect is partly due to the decline in, and the volatility of, interest rates after the 1980s. 4 Guy Debelle, "Household Debt and the Macroeconomy," BIS Quarterly Review, March 2004. Appendix Charts Chart II-16, Chart II-17, Chart II-18, Chart II-19 Chart II-16U.S. Debt By Sector U.S. Debt By Sector U.S. Debt By Sector Chart II-17U.K. Debt By Sector U.K. Debt By Sector U.K. Debt By Sector Chart II-18Japan Debt By Sector Japan Debt By Sector Japan Debt By Sector Chart II-19Euro Area Debt By Sector Euro Area Debt By Sector Euro Area Debt By Sector III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equities have been in a holding pattern so far in 2017, consolidating the gains made at the end of last year. Our key equity indicators are mixed at the moment. The Valuation indicator continues to hover at about a half standard deviation on the expensive side. The effect of the rise in global equity indexes late last year on valuation was offset by a surge in profits. Stocks are not cheap but, at this level, valuation not a roadblock to further price gains. Our Monetary indicator deteriorated further over the past couple of months, driven by a stronger dollar and higher bond yields. A shift in this indicator below the zero line would be negative for stock markets. Sentiment is also frothy, which is bearish from a contrary perspective, although our Technical indicator is positive. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The WTP indicators have all turned higher from a low level for the Japanese, the European and the U.S. markets. This suggests that investors, after loading up on bonds last year, have "dry powder" available to buy stocks as risk tolerance improves. The U.S. WTP has risen the fastest and is closing in on the 0.95 level. Our tests show that, historically, investors would have reaped impressive gains if they had over-weighted stocks versus bonds when the WTP was rising and reached 0.95. The WTPs suggest that the U.S. market should outperform the Eurozone and Japanese markets in the near term, although for macro reasons we still believe the U.S. will lag the other two. We expect the global stock-to-bond total return ratio to rise through this year. The latest selloff has pushed U.S. Treasurys slightly into "inexpensive" territory based on our Valuation model. Bonds are still technically oversold and sentiment remains bullish, suggesting that the consolidation phase may last a little longer. Nonetheless, we expect to recommend short-duration positions again once the overbought conditions unwind. The U.S. dollar is near previous secular peaks according to our valuation measure. Nonetheless, policy divergences are likely to drive the U.S. dollar to new valuation highs before the bull market is over. Technically overbought conditions have almost unwound, clearing the way for the next leg of the dollar bull run. Commodities have been on a tear on the back of improving and synchronized growth across the major countries (and some dollar weakness very recently). The commodity price outlook is clouded by the prospect of a border tax, which could send the U.S. dollar soaring. The broad commodity market is also approaching overbought levels. The cyclical growth outlook is positive for commodity demand, although supply factors favor oil to base metals. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Inflation: Inflation will trend higher this year, but at a measured pace. The impact of a tight labor market and accelerating wage growth will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Even if the economic recovery remains on track, year-over-year core PCE inflation is likely to still be below the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. Yield Curve: With core inflation still low, the Fed will be quick to back away from its rate hike plans if there is any indication that inflation might reverse its uptrend. This supports a bear-steepening of the yield curve and the continued outperformance of TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Spread Product: Excess returns to spread product are not likely to turn deeply negative until core PCE inflation is above 2% and Fed policy becomes more focused on halting inflation than supporting the recovery. We retain a neutral allocation to spread product in our portfolio. Feature Chart 1A Sustainable Recovery A Sustainable Recovery A Sustainable Recovery After seven years of false starts and disappointments, a durable recovery in inflation is finally under way (Chart 1). The key difference between the current uptrend and prior episodes of rising inflation - such as those witnessed in 2011 and 2014 - is that this time around most labor market indicators suggest the economy is very close to full employment. For this reason the recovery in core inflation is likely to persist, and will eventually settle at a level close to the Fed's 2% target for core PCE. That being said, it is still far too soon for investors to worry about inflation, particularly as it relates to the performance of risk assets. The remainder of this report discusses why the recovery in inflation is likely to be slow moving, and also how the inflation outlook impacts our major fixed income investment calls. Some Near-Term Headwinds There are two reasons why year-over-year measures of core inflation are likely to moderate during the next three months. First, diffusion indexes for both CPI and PCE inflation have recently dipped below the zero line (Chart 2), meaning that more components of each index have decelerating prices than have accelerating prices. Historically, rising year-over-year core inflation has been associated with diffusion indexes above zero. Second, January and February of last year saw incredibly large price increases in both core CPI and core PCE (Chart 3). This means that gains in January and February of this year will also have to be very strong to overcome the large base effect and cause the year-over-year growth rates to move higher. Chart 2Diffusion Indexes Point To Deceleration Diffusion Indexes Point To Deceleration Diffusion Indexes Point To Deceleration Chart 3A Large Base Effect In Jan & Feb A Large Base Effect In Jan & Feb A Large Base Effect In Jan & Feb Now these are only very short term arguments. The base effects will be out of the way by March and diffusion indexes can reverse course very quickly. However, they do suggest that inflation readings are likely to be relatively weak during the next few months. This will be critical for the near-term path of monetary policy and, in our view, makes it likely that the Fed will keep rates steady until the June FOMC meeting. The Phillips Curve Chart 4A Phillips Curve Model Of Inflation A Phillips Curve Model Of Inflation A Phillips Curve Model Of Inflation Turning to the longer run outlook for inflation, we employ a Phillips curve model of core PCE inflation based on one that Janet Yellen referred to in a speech from September 2015.1 In this framework, the year-over-year change in core PCE inflation is modeled using: Lagged core inflation Inflation expectations (from the Survey of Professional Forecasters) Non-oil import price inflation relative to core PCE inflation Resource utilization (calculated as the difference between the unemployment rate and the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimate of the natural rate of unemployment) The model does an excellent job capturing changes in core PCE inflation since 1990 (Chart 4), and is also useful because it gives us a glimpse of the mental framework that Fed policymakers apply to the task of inflation forecasting. Most importantly, the model allows us to generate inflation forecasts given estimates for inflation expectations, the unemployment rate and the U.S. dollar (which closely tracks relative import prices). For example, in a base case scenario where we assume that inflation expectations and the dollar remain flat, but that the unemployment rate declines from its current level of 4.7% to 4.5% by the end of this year, the model predicts year-over-year core PCE inflation will rise from its current level of 1.65% to 1.87% by November, still below the Fed's 2% target. If we keep the same forecast for a steadily declining unemployment rate but also incorporate a 5% increase in the value of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, then core PCE inflation is projected to rise to 1.76% by November. The stronger dollar means that import prices exert a bit more of a drag. Conversely, if we keep the same unemployment assumption but assume that the U.S. dollar depreciates by 5%, then core PCE inflation is projected to reach 1.98% by November. In this scenario import prices actually provide a slight boost to core inflation. Overall, to create a scenario where core inflation reaches the Fed's target before the end of this year we need to make a fairly optimistic assumption about the unemployment rate and also incorporate a substantial dollar depreciation. In our view, it is more likely that the dollar remains under mild upward pressure this year as the U.S. economy continues to de-couple from the rest of the world. Fiscal policy remains the wildcard, as any protectionist measures implemented by the new U.S. government could lead to import price shocks. Although at first blush any watering-down of trade deals, imposition of tariffs, or protectionist tweaks to the tax code would seem likely to send import prices higher, much depends on how much of the adjustment to the new trade policy occurs through the exchange rate or through prices. This is incredibly hard to determine until the details of any protectionist trade measures are known. Our Global Investment Strategy service explored the potential ramifications of one such trade proposal - a border-adjusted corporate tax - in a Special Report published last week.2 A Bottom-Up Perspective An alternative to the Phillips curve approach is to split core inflation into its major sub-components: shelter, core goods and core services excluding shelter. We can then examine each sub-component separately and identify different macro drivers for each (Chart 5). Shelter has been the strongest contributor to core inflation so far in this recovery and can be modeled using home prices, the rental vacancy rate and household formation (Chart 5, panel 1). Based on these relationships, we expect shelter inflation will remain elevated for quite some time, while our model suggests it is even likely to move a bit higher during the next few months. After briefly seeming like it might rebound earlier last year, the rental vacancy rate has since fallen to new lows while home price appreciation continues at a steady rate of just above 4% per year (Chart 6). Further, the vacancy rate should remain under downward pressure and home prices under upward pressure as long as household formation continues to outpace home construction. The top panel of Chart 6 shows that the difference between housing starts and household formation closely tracks the rental vacancy rate. The vacancy rate rose throughout the 1990s and early 2000s as housing starts outpaced the creation of new households, but starts have not been sufficiently robust so far in this recovery. In addition, housing inventory as a percent of households is near the lows of the early 1990s (Chart 6, bottom panel). This inventory calculation includes the "shadow inventory" from foreclosed homes which has almost normalized back to pre-crisis levels, in any case. Chart 5The Components Of Core CPI The Components Of Core CPI The Components Of Core CPI Chart 6Drivers Of Shelter Inflation Drivers Of Shelter Inflation Drivers Of Shelter Inflation We expect that shelter inflation will remain elevated at least until housing construction starts to outpace the creation of new households, but will moderate once that supply response starts to emerge. Chart 7Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker* ##br##Versus Unemployment Rate Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Core goods inflation (Chart 5, panel 2) has been, and will continue to be, the major source of deflation in this cycle. A large fraction of core goods are imported and, as such, core goods inflation tends to follow the trend in the U.S. dollar. The bull market in the U.S. dollar will continue to keep a lid on core goods prices, and will limit how quickly inflation can rise. Any meaningful increase in inflation this year is likely to come from the core services excluding shelter component, which historically tends to track fluctuations in wage growth (Chart 5, bottom panel). As we have previously highlighted, the labor market is close to full employment and the relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth remains strong (Chart 7). In this environment, even modest further declines in the unemployment rate should exert meaningful upward pressure on wages. Bottom Line: Inflation will trend higher this year, but at a measured pace. The impact of a tight labor market and accelerating wage growth will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Even if the economic recovery remains on track, year-over-year core PCE inflation is likely to still be below the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. Investment Implications Duration & TIPS Chart 8Leading Inflation Indicators & Breakevens Leading Inflation Indicators & Breakevens Leading Inflation Indicators & Breakevens Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates still have upside, although the rate of increase is unlikely to maintain its current rapid pace. As core inflation converges with the Fed's target so should long-dated measures of inflation expectations such as TIPS breakevens. Historically, core PCE inflation close to 2% has coincided with long-dated TIPS breakevens in a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. With the 10-year breakeven currently at 2.05%, we expect it has another 35 to 45 basis points of upside. Measures of pipeline inflation pressure, such as producer prices and the prices paid and supplier deliveries components of the ISM manufacturing survey also point to rising breakevens (Chart 8). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. With rate hike expectations still relatively depressed,3 real yields do not have much downside. Rising breakevens should therefore also pressure long-dated nominal yields higher in the months ahead. While we currently recommend a benchmark duration stance, we are actively looking for an opportunity to shift to below-benchmark duration, as was discussed in last week's report.4 Yield Curve As breakevens and nominal yields move higher the yield curve should also steepen (Chart 9). The strong positive correlation between the slope of the yield curve and TIPS breakevens is the result of the impact of Fed policy on both variables. Chart 9Wider Breakevens Correlated With A Steeper Yield Curve Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Fed policy tends to be accommodative in the early stages of a recovery, and this causes the yield curve to steepen and breakevens to widen as investors logically expect that easy money will cause both growth and inflation to move higher. In contrast, the yield curve tends to flatten and breakevens tend to fall later in the recovery once Fed policy turns more restrictive. Chart 105-Year Bullet Still Cheap 5-Year Bullet Still Cheap 5-Year Bullet Still Cheap Given that core inflation and TIPS breakevens both remain below the Fed's targets, it is too soon to expect a shift toward restrictive Fed policy. In other words, the Fed will be quick to back away from its rate hike plans if there is any indication that breakevens or inflation might reverse their uptrends. It is only once core inflation and TIPS breakevens have returned to the Fed's targets that the stated purpose of Fed policy will shift from supporting the recovery to snuffing out inflation. To profit from a steeper yield curve we entered a long 5-year bullet short duration-matched 2/10 barbell trade on December 20. So far this trade has returned 14 bps, and the 5-year bullet continues to look very cheap on the curve (Chart 10). Spread Product In prior research we considered the performance of spread product throughout the four phases of the Fed cycle (Chart 11).5 We define the four phases of the Fed cycle as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. Chart 11Stylized Fed Cycle Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Using a very simple estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate based on potential GDP and a long-run moving average of the funds rate itself, we have found that excess returns to investment grade corporate bonds are highest in phase IV and phase I, when the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (Table 1). However, the key problem with this analysis is that it is very difficult to estimate the equilibrium fed funds rate in real time. As stated above, the estimate used in Table 1 incorporates the CBO's estimate of potential GDP which is frequently revised after the fact. So while we are confident that we are currently in phase I of the Fed cycle, the challenge becomes looking for other indicators that might warn us about the transition from phase I to phase II, where excess returns are much worse. We have found that core PCE inflation is one such indicator. We calculated average monthly excess returns to investment grade corporate bonds when year-over-year core PCE inflation is below 1.5%, between 1.5% and 2%, and between 2% and 2.5% (Table 2). Table 1Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under The Four Phases##br## Of The Fed Cycle (August 1988 To Present) Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Table 2Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under Different Ranges##br## For Year-Over-Year Core** PCE (August 1988 To Present) Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm The results show that the highest returns occur when inflation is below 1.5%. This should not be surprising since an environment of low inflation is most likely to coincide with phase IV of the Fed cycle. We found mixed results for when inflation is between 1.5% and 2%. In this environment average monthly excess returns are close to zero and a 90% confidence interval places them between -19 bps and +17 bps. This environment likely encompasses phase I of the Fed cycle and the transition into phase II. It is not until core PCE inflation is above 2% that excess returns turn decisively negative. Monthly excess returns average -13 bps in this environment, with a 90% confidence interval of -35 bps to +10 bps. With inflation likely to remain between 1.5% and 2% for the balance of the year, it is too soon to turn all-out bearish on spread product. For the moment we recommend a neutral allocation, but with an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds where valuations are exceedingly tight. Given that inflation is low and Fed policy is accommodative, we would be quick to upgrade both investment grade and high-yield corporates on any near-term sell off. The current uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy also complicates the outlook for spread product. On the one hand, it raises the risk of a near-term sell off if it appears as though some of the more stimulative aspects of Trump's agenda will not be implemented. On the other hand, in addition to headline-grabbing promises of increased infrastructure spending, there are many other policy details that could also have significant market implications. One example would be the elimination of the tax deductibility of corporate interest expenses. Such a provision is currently included in the Republican's plan for corporate tax reform, and would severely diminish supply in the corporate bond market if it is implemented. Bottom Line: Excess returns to spread product are not likely to turn deeply negative until core PCE inflation is above 2% and Fed policy becomes more focused on halting inflation than supporting the recovery. We retain a neutral allocation to spread product in our portfolio. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017", dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 The overnight index swap curve is priced for 54 basis points of rate hikes during the next twelve months. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear client, We have received several questions about a potential U.S. border tax adjustment. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President of BCA's Global Investment Strategy service addresses this issue in the attached Special Report titled, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017". Peter analyses the economic and financial market implications of the plan and concludes it is likely to be an additional support to the dollar bull market should it be implemented in full. We trust you will find this report very interesting and relevant. As always, please do not hesitate if you have further questions. Best regards, Lenka Martinek Highlights House Republicans are pushing for a radical overhaul of the existing tax code, including adding a "border adjustment" mechanism that would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. Despite President Trump's apparent mixed feelings about border taxation, we see a 50% chance that some version of the proposal will be implemented. This is a higher probability than the market currently is discounting. The trade-weighted dollar will rally by another 5% even in the absence of any tax changes, but could rise by 15% if the border adjustment tax is introduced. If the latter were to happen, it would take some time for the dollar to rise to its new equilibrium level. This, in conjunction with sticky import and export prices, would likely lead to a temporary narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit. Such an outcome could prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. Investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. A stronger dollar will push down commodity prices and hurt external borrowers with dollar-denominated loans. A protectionist backlash against the U.S. might ensue. We are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32%, and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Feature Making The Tax Code Great Again? Republicans in Congress are proposing an ambitious revamp of the tax code. A central element of their plan is the replacement of the existing corporate income tax with a so-called "destination-based cash flow tax." Key features of this plan include: Cutting the current federal corporate tax from a top rate of 35% to 20%. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital expenditures immediately, rather than writing them off over many years. Disallowing businesses from deducting interest expenses when calculating their tax bills. Moving to a system of territorial taxation, meaning that taxes would only be assessed on the value added of goods consumed in the United States. Since not all goods that are produced in the U.S. are consumed in the U.S., and not all goods that are consumed in the U.S. are produced in the U.S., a destination-based system requires what is known as a "border adjustment." Such an adjustment would tax the value added of imports and rebate the value added of exports at an equivalent rate. While border adjustments are routinely used in other settings - most notably by countries that have VATs - their application to corporate income taxes is a novel idea. As such, it is not surprising that the proposal has generated significant confusion among investors. With that in mind, we offer our thoughts on the matter using a Q&A format. Q: How exactly would a border adjustment on corporate income taxes work? A: Under current U.S. law, corporate income taxes are assessed on worldwide profits, which are the difference between worldwide revenues and worldwide costs. The introduction of a border tax adjustment would change the tax system to one where taxes are assessed only on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs (i.e., revenues derived in the U.S. minus costs incurred in the U.S.). Table 1 offers a simplified example to illustrate this point. Consider three types of companies: 1) A purely domestic producer whose revenues and costs are realized at home; 2) An exporter whose revenues are entirely derived from abroad but whose costs are all incurred in the U.S.; 3) An importer whose revenues are completely generated in the U.S. but whose costs are all incurred abroad. Suppose that all three companies have revenues of $100 and costs of $60 - implying $40 in pre-tax profits - and face a corporate tax rate of 20%. Before the border adjustment, each company would pay a tax of $8 ($40 times 0.2). The border adjustment is zero for the domestic producer. However, it would impose an additional tax of $12 on the importer ($60 times 0.2), while giving the exporter a rebate of $20 ($100 times 0.2). In the end, the importer and exporter face final tax bills of $20 and -$12, respectively, while the domestic producer continues to pay $8. Note that this conforms with the tax paid on domestic revenues minus domestic costs (for the domestic producer, domestic revenue minus domestic cost is equal to $40; for the exporter it is equal to -$60; and for the importer, it is equal to $100). Q: A tax on imports and a subsidy on exports? Sounds like massive protectionism! A: That depends on the extent to which the dollar appreciates. As Table 1 shows, if the dollar appreciates by 1/(1-tax rate) = 1/(1-0.2) = 25%, there would be no impact on the trade balance or on the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy. This is because the stronger dollar would nullify the subsidy on exports, while reducing import costs by precisely the amount necessary to restore importers' after-tax profits to their original level. Chart Q: This seems like splitting hairs. If a country imposes a 20% tax on imports, most people would still regard this as a protectionist act, even if a currency appreciation offsets the impact. A: That's why a corresponding export subsidy is necessary. That may sound strange since export subsidies are also seen as protectionist measures, but consider the following: Imagine that the government only taxes imports. A tax on imports would curb import demand, implying less demand for foreign currency. This would push up the value of the dollar, leading to lower import prices. How high would the dollar go? Suppose it rose so much that the decline in import prices exactly offset the tariff, thereby restoring import volumes (and importer profits) back to their original level. Is that a stable equilibrium? The answer is no because a stronger dollar would also reduce the demand for U.S. exports, causing the trade deficit to swell. Thus, for the trade balance to remain unchanged, the dollar would have to rise only part of the way, leaving importers worse off than before the tariff was introduced. Such a policy would be protectionist because it would favor U.S.-based companies that produce for the domestic market over foreign exporters. Only in the case where importers are subject to a tax and exporters receive a subsidy will the dollar strengthen to the point that neither exports nor imports change. Intuitively, this is because an export subsidy indirectly benefits importers by pushing up the value of the dollar, while directly benefiting exporters by offsetting the effect of a stronger dollar on profits. Q: If there is no change in the trade balance, what is the advantage of border-adjusting the corporate income tax? A: Contrary to Donald Trump's assertion that border adjustments are "too complicated," their chief advantage is their simplicity. Accurately assessing taxes on worldwide income is hard. Companies routinely engage in practices that purposely lower taxable profits. In particular, importers may overstate the value of their imports and exporters may understate the value of their exports. In a world where many companies have overseas subsidiaries, such "transfer pricing" machinations are easy to pull off. Border adjustments eliminate such incentives in one fell swoop. Recall that with a border adjustment, taxes are assessed on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs - both of which the IRS has the means to monitor. Yes, a U.S. company that overstates imports will be able to report a lower gross profit to the IRS, but now it will be on the hook for a higher import tax. What it puts in one pocket it takes from the other. Likewise, an exporter that understates its overseas sales will end up with a lower gross profit, but will now receive a smaller subsidy. Q: And I suppose that because the U.S. imports more than it exports, the border adjustment will end up raising additional revenues? A: That is correct. The annual U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $500 billion. A border adjustment tax rate of 20% would thus raise $100 billion in additional revenue. Given that the corporate income tax brings in about $350 billion, this would allow corporate taxes to be substantially cut without any loss in overall revenue. And this calculation excludes any indirect revenue that would accrue to the Treasury from reducing the incentive for U.S. companies to engage in profit-shifting behavior. Keep in mind, however, that the revenue boost from the border adjustment will decline if the U.S. trade deficit narrows over time. To the extent that the U.S. must finance its trade deficit through the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, and property, it is possible that foreigners will one day decide to swap all these assets in exchange for U.S. goods. This would lead to an improvement in the U.S. trade balance. Indeed, to the extent that the U.S. is a net debtor to the rest of the world, it is possible that the average future U.S. trade balance will be positive. If that were to happen, the government would lose revenue from the border adjustment over the long haul. Meanwhile, a 25% appreciation in the greenback would reduce the dollar value of the assets that Americans hold abroad, without much of a corresponding decline in U.S. external liabilities. A reasonable estimate is that this would impose a paper loss on the U.S. of about 13% of GDP.1 Q: Ouch! But this assumes that a 20% border adjustment tax will lead to a 25% appreciation in the dollar. That is a mighty big can opener your fellow economists are assuming! What's to say this actually happens? A: Good point. Less than 10% of the turnover in the global foreign exchange market is directly related to the cross-border trade in goods and services. The rest represents financial market transactions. There are many things that can influence the value of the dollar beside trade flows. For example, suppose the government introduces a border adjustment tax, but the Federal Reserve fails to raise rates sufficiently fast in response to rising inflation stemming from a narrowing trade deficit. In that case, U.S. real rates could actually decline, leading to a weaker dollar. Our sense is that this won't happen, but the point is that there is no automatic link between a border tax and the dollar. Much depends on how the Fed responds and the underlying economic conditions. And even if the Fed does hike rates to keep the economy from overheating, two important forces will limit the extent of any dollar appreciation: First, questions about the timing and magnitude of the border adjustment tax - including the possibility that such a measure could be reversed by a future Congress - are likely to lead to only a partial appreciation in the dollar. Second, other central banks - particularly in emerging markets - are liable to take steps to limit the dollar's ascent so as not to place too great a burden on borrowers with dollar-denominated debt. Q: So what happens to countries with hard currency pegs to the dollar? Borrowers with dollar-denominated loans will be spared, but won't these countries end up suffering due to a sharp loss of competitiveness against other economies that have more flexible currencies? A: Correct. It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Assuming that countries with exchange rate pegs to the dollar are strong enough to fend off a speculative attack, they will still need to engineer an equivalent real depreciation of their currencies via a decline in their nominal wages relative to U.S. wages - what economists call an "internal devaluation." That could impose a deflationary impulse on those economies. Q: You're losing me. A: Think about an extreme case - one where all countries have currency pegs to the dollar. How would the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax work then? The answer is that initially, a tax on U.S. imports, combined with a subsidy on U.S. exports, would lead to a smaller trade deficit. This would cause the U.S. economy to overheat, putting upward pressure on prices and wages. By definition, an improving trade balance in the U.S. implies a worsening trade balance in the rest of the world. This would sap demand in other countries, putting downward pressure on prices and wages abroad. The adjustment will be complete only after relative wages have shifted enough to restore the U.S. trade balance to its original level. The important point is that in a world where some countries have flexible exchange rates while others have fixed exchange rates or dirty floats, the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax will come through some combination of a stronger nominal dollar, higher U.S. inflation, and lower inflation abroad. Q: Bullish for the dollar, but bearish for U.S. bonds, correct? A: Precisely. The degree to which bond yields adjust around the world depends on the extent to which nominal exchange rates and domestic prices are sticky. If exchange rates are slow to change, more of the adjustment has to occur through higher inflation in the U.S. and lower inflation everywhere else. But even if nominal exchange rates adjust quickly, sticky goods prices would still push up U.S. bond yields. To see this point, consider what would happen if the dollar appreciated by 25% in response to the introduction of a border adjustment tax, but neither import prices nor export prices (expressed in U.S. dollars) changed. If that were to happen, the profit margins of U.S. importers would tumble because they would now have to pay an import tax but would not benefit from lower import prices. Meanwhile, the margins of U.S. exporters would soar as export prices stayed firm and they received a subsidy from the government. The result would be less imports and more exports, and hence, an improved trade balance. This would raise U.S. aggregate demand and put upward pressure on inflation and Treasury yields. Considering that 97% of U.S. exports and 93% of U.S. imports are denominated in dollars, such an outcome is hardly far-fetched. The bottom line is that in the "real world," the introduction of a border adjustment tax would cause Treasurys to sell off and the dollar to rally. Q: What sort of numbers are we talking about? A: Assuming a 20% border tax is introduced, a reasonable guess is that the trade-weighted dollar would rise by 10% over a 12-month period above and beyond our current forecast of a 5% gain. This would imply 15% upside from current levels. The 10-year Treasury yield would probably rise to about 3%. Q: It still puzzles me how you can claim that bond yields will rise if the dollar strengthens. Wouldn't a stronger dollar normally lead to lower bond yields? A: Your premise is wrong. It is not the stronger dollar that leads to higher bond yields. It is a third factor - namely the improvement in the trade balance arising from the decision to tax imports and subsidize exports - that causes both the dollar and bond yields to rise. This is similar to what happens when the government loosens fiscal policy. Mind you, at some point the positive correlation between the dollar and bond yields could break down. If the dollar rises too much, emerging markets will crumble under the stress. This will trigger safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, leading to a stronger dollar and lower yields. Such an outcome is not our base case, but it cannot be dismissed. Q: Got it. Presuming that the global economy holds up, it sounds like a border tax would be great news for Boeing, but bad news for Walmart? A: Yes, but there are two important qualifications to consider. First, it is possible that the dollar overshoots its new long-term equilibrium level, so that the pain to Boeing from the appreciation of the greenback ends up outweighing the benefits from the export subsidy it receives. Second, given the potential economic and financial dislocations from the shift to a destination-based tax system, there is likely to be some delay between when the tax bill is signed into law and when it is implemented. And even once implementation begins, the adjustment in tax rates may be phased in only gradually. Since the dollar will rise in anticipation of all this, it is possible that exporters will actually suffer initially, while importers receive a temporary boost to profits. Nevertheless, we think that investors will see through the near-term hit to exporter margins and focus on the medium-term gains. As such, equity investors should maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that heavily rely on imports (Chart 1). Chart 1 Q: This assumes that the market has not fully priced in this outcome already. What are the chances that this border adjustment tax proposal actually sees the light of day? A: The border tax idea originated in the House of Representatives and has its strongest support there. There might be more opposition in the Senate, but this could be overcome if enough Democrats with protectionist leanings can be found. President Trump panned the idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.2 He noted that "Anytime I hear about border adjustment, I don't love it... because usually it means we're going to get adjusted into a bad deal. That's what happens." Trump's comments suggest he may not fully understand how border adjustments work. This implies that he might be persuaded to go along with the idea if Republican legislators are able to reach a "great deal" on adjustments in his eyes, whatever that means. Subjectively, we would assign 50% probability to a border tax being introduced in some form or another, although our sense is that it will be somewhat watered down so as not to generate major dislocations for the economy. This might entail excluding certain types of imports from a border tax if they are consumed disproportionately by the poor or represent an important input for U.S. manufacturing firms. Apparel and energy products would probably be on that list. It might also entail reducing the border adjustment tax to a lower level, say 10%, as Tom Barrack, head of Donald Trump's inaugural committee, has suggested. It is hard to know how much of this is already reflected in asset prices. The dollar fell after the WSJ article was published, but that may have had less to do with border adjustments and more to do with Trump's comment that he prefers a weaker dollar - an unprecedented statement for a U.S. president. Goldman Sachs' securities group has constructed two baskets using firm-level data, one comprised of "destination tax winners" and the other of "destination tax losers."3 The loser basket actually outperformed in the immediate aftermath of the election. While the relative performance of the winner basket has recovered more recently, it still remains below where it was last April (Chart 2). The limited reaction to the prospect of a border adjustment tax has been echoed in the fact that market expectations of the future volatility of the dollar has not changed much since the election, despite the possibility that the coming legislative debate could lead to wild swings in the greenback (Chart 3). Chart 2 Chart 3Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated On balance, we conclude that investors are understating the likelihood of even a watered down border adjustment tax being introduced as part of a comprehensive tax reform program. This is broadly consistent with our client discussions, which have revealed that most investors - with a few notable exceptions - are only vaguely aware of the issue. Q: Won't the WTO rule against a border adjustment tax? That could explain why investors are discounting it. A: Yes, it probably will. The WTO permits border adjustments in the case of "indirect" taxes such VATs, but not in the case of direct taxes such as income or corporate profit taxes. Granted, the U.S. has brushed off WTO decisions in the past, such as when it ignored the trade body's ruling that U.S. laws restricting internet gambling contravened the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Considering that Donald Trump threatened to pull the U.S. out of the WTO during the election campaign, such an outcome cannot be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the border tax issue, even the Trump administration is likely to think twice about running afoul of WTO rules. Nevertheless, it might be possible to modify the border adjustment proposal to make it WTO-compliant. The distinction between direct and indirect taxes is one of those things self-styled experts like to pretend is important, but is not. It does not really matter whether a tax is levied on the sale of a good or service, or whether it is levied on income. In the end, someone has to pay the tax - be it a worker or a shareholder. The adoption by the U.S. of a border-adjusted destination tax would move the global economy in the direction of greater harmonization, not away from it. As noted at the outset, most other countries border adjust their value-added taxes. They do this so that their VATs mirror a consumption tax, as Table 2 illustrates with a simple example. Conceptually, a corporate cash flow tax coupled with a payroll tax functions in much the same way as a VAT (bottom part of Table 2). The U.S. already has both a corporate income and a payroll tax, so it is not that far away from having a VAT. All that is missing is a few tweaks to depreciation rules and the addition of the border adjustment. Chart Yes, the dollar would strengthen if that were to happen, but this would put the greenback on par with other currencies. Chart 4 shows that the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the G7 since 1990, despite the fact that the dollar has traded on average 9% below its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over this period. One of the reasons this has occurred is that other G7 economies have a VAT, whereas the U.S. does not (Chart 5). This has kept the dollar weaker than it otherwise would have been. Chart 4The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason Chart 5 Q: Okay, let's wrap this up. What are the main investment implications I should take away from this? A: Our main takeaway is that investors are underestimating the likelihood that the U.S. adopts a destination-based tax system. This suggests that the risks to the dollar are to the upside, as are the risks to U.S. Treasury yields. Global investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. The implications for global equities are more nuanced. It may take some time for the dollar to adjust to the border tax. This, combined with the fact that import and export prices tend to be sticky in the short run, implies that the U.S. trade deficit will decline, boosting U.S. aggregate demand in the process. While that is potentially good news for U.S. corporate profits, the benefits will be curtailed by the fact that the U.S. economy is approaching full employment. This means that any further stimulus could simply result in higher real wages for workers without any offsetting increase in unit sales for U.S. companies. A shrinking U.S. trade deficit will diminish America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." This is problematic for export-dependent emerging markets. While a border adjustment may be justifiable on economic grounds, politically, it could be seen as the first volley in a global trade war. This could sour sentiment towards EM stocks. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar would harm emerging markets with high levels of dollar-denominated debt such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Chile, while also weighing on commodity prices. We recommend that investors underweight EM stocks relative to their DM counterparts. With these considerations in mind, we are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32% and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 U.S. external assets amount to 133% of GDP, while foreign liabilities stand at 175% of GDP. About 68% of U.S. external assets are denominated in foreign currency, compared with only 16% of external liabilities. Thus, the paper loss to the U.S. from a 25% appreciation in the dollar would be (175*0.16-133*0.68)*(1-1/1.25) = 12.5% of GDP. 2 Please see "Donald Trump Warns On House Republican Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, dated January 16, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 3 The Bloomberg tickers for these baskets are GSCBDTW1 and GSCBDTL1. For more information, please see "US Daily: What Policy Changes Is The Equity Market Expecting?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research, dated January 11, 2017.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Media stocks are poised to challenge previous relative performance highs as sales growth reaccelerates. Stay overweight. The materials sector has lagged behind the commodity price rally, a sign of underlying weakness rather than latent strength. Chemicals overcapacity will remain a headwind until U.S. competitiveness improves. Stay clear. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) The "IF" Rally The "IF" Rally Feature The broad market has been very strong since the November election. While advance/decline lines have firmed, participation in the rally has been uneven and may be fraying around the edges. For example, the number of groups trading above their 40-week moving average has been diverging negatively from the broad market in the last few months, suggesting diminishing breadth (Chart 1). In fact, the industrials (I) and financials (F) sectors have carried the market since November. Other deep cyclical sectors, such as energy, materials and tech, have mostly matched market performance. The 'IF' rally is based on an expected upgrade to the economic growth plane that matches the surge in various sentiment gauges. If validation does not occur, then the IF rally will become iffy indeed, unless sector breadth improves. Last week we showed that market cap-to-GDP was so far above its long-term average that even if nominal growth boomed at 8% per annum for the next five years this valuation ratio would still not have normalized. That valuation backdrop may not upend additional short-term market momentum, but it is a true measure of just how bullish sentiment has become and should be a critical input to the portfolio construction process, because of its warning about divergences from fundamental supports. Another unconventional sentiment gauge is observed from sub-surface market patterns. Chart 1 shows that the number of defensive groups with a positive 52-week rate of change, in relative terms, is in freefall, plunged to virtually nil. In the last two decades, investors eschewing capital preservation and non-cyclical sectors so aggressively has typically preceded major market peaks (Chart 1). The steep drop in the put/call ratio confirms that euphoria and greed are trumping mistrust and fear. The put/call ratio has recently bounced, but is well below levels that signal investors are accumulating significant portfolio protection. The Fed's tightening bias, contracting U.S. dollar-based financial liquidity amid the strong U.S. dollar all threaten to keep a lid on corporate sector sales prospects. As such, we remain biased toward non-cyclical and consumer sectors, even excluding fiscal policy uncertainty. Chart 2 shows that these areas are in a base-building phase, in relative terms, following their post-election drubbing. We expect momentum to steadily build toward sustained outperformance by midyear. Conversely, a reversal in the 'IF' sectors already appears to be developing, while other capital spending-dependent sectors are unable to gain momentum (Chart 3). This week we highlight both a winning group and an area we expect to disappoint. Chart 1The Rally Is Fraying Around The Edges The Rally Is Fraying Around The Edges The Rally Is Fraying Around The Edges Chart 2Defensive Base-Building? Defensive Base-Building? Defensive Base-Building? Chart 3Cyclical Sector Distribution Cyclical Sector Distribution Cyclical Sector Distribution New Highs Ahead For Media While the consumer discretionary sector has a poor track record during Fed tightening cycles, the S&P media sub-component can buck this trend. Media stocks outperformed in the second half of the 1990s and also trended higher in the 1980s while the Fed was tightening. The key was the U.S. dollar (Chart 4). As long as the dollar was strong, media companies sustained a profit advantage over the rest of the corporate sector owing to limited external exposure. A replay is currently playing out, and has the potential to persist for at least the next few quarters based on upbeat cyclical indicators. Media sales growth is in recovery mode. Consumers have significantly boosted spending on media services, as measured by personal consumption expenditures data (Chart 5). Pricing power has surged in response to demand strength (Chart 5, bottom panel). In turn, strong demand is boosting measures of productivity: our proxy for sales/employment is accelerating toward the double-digit growth zone (Chart 5). Productivity is diverging positively from relative forward earnings expectations, implying there is room for a re-rating. As long as the U.S. economy is growing, media companies should be able to garner an increasing share of consumer wallets. Chart 6 shows that real spending on media services has been in a steady uptrend for well over a decade, reflecting its ability to continually innovate, only pausing during recessions when consumers are forced to retrench. Typically, a rise in spending pulls up pricing power (Chart 6). Chart 4Media Stocks Like Dollar Strength Media Stocks Like Dollar Strength Media Stocks Like Dollar Strength Chart 5Sales Are Set To Accelerate Sales Are Set To Accelerate Sales Are Set To Accelerate Chart 6Secular Strength Secular Strength Secular Strength All of this has spurred a recovery in media cash flow growth (Chart 7, top panel). Relative performance and cash flow move hand-in-hand. Rising cash flows also imply that the media sector can further reduce shares outstanding through buybacks and/or M&A activity (Chart 7), bolstering ROE. The S&P movies & entertainment index has been one of the driving forces behind the broader media index recovery. We upgraded the former to overweight after the vicious selloff related to Disney's ESPN woes and the takeover saga at Viacom had pushed the index to an undervalued extreme. While slightly early, this upgrade is now paying off (Chart 8). The expectations hurdle remains surmountable. Both forward earnings and sales growth estimates are deeply negative (Chart 8), reflecting the well-known cooling in cable subscriber growth. But even here, there is room for potential upside surprises. Consumer spending on recreation has been growing at a low single-digit clip, but the surge in consumer confidence, courtesy of rising wage growth and a positive wealth effect from rising real estate and financial asset prices, should support increased discretionary consumer spending. The message from the jump in the ISM services index is bullish for recreation spending (Chart 9, second panel). Chart 7Shareholder-Friendly Shareholder-Friendly Shareholder-Friendly Chart 8Cheap With Low Expectations Cheap With Low Expectations Cheap With Low Expectations Chart 9Still Early In The Recovery Still Early In The Recovery Still Early In The Recovery In turn, faster spending would support ongoing pricing power gains (Chart 9). The industry is already sporting one of the most robust selling price increases of all that we track, as advertising rate inflation is growing anew. Importantly, real outlays on cable services have recovered after a steep decline (Chart 9), suggesting that the drag from disappointing cable subscriber growth and cord cutting may be easing. Less churn implies more pricing power. Content cost inflation also remains under wraps. The implication is that the fundamental forces to propel a retest of previous relative performance highs are in place. Technical conditions are also sending a bullish signal. Cyclical momentum, as measured by the 52-week rate of change, is on the cusp of breaking into positive territory (Chart 9), while the share price ratio has already crossed decisively above key resistance at its 40-week moving average. A dual breakout would confirm a new bull trend. Bottom Line: Media stocks have good odds of retesting previous relative performance highs as discretionary consumer spending perks up. Stay overweight the overall media group, and the S&P movies and entertainment index in particular. Chemical Stocks: A Toxic Portfolio Blend The commodity price recovery has not carried over into the S&P materials sector, as relative performance has been moving laterally for much of the last twelve months. Rather than view this as an opportunity to play catch up, the more likely outcome is that the sector has missed its chance to outperform. In fact, downside risks have intensified. The strong U.S. dollar will exact a toll on U.S. exporters, particularly if emerging markets and China do not experience accelerating final demand. While there has been a massive amount of stimulus in China over the past 18 months, the thrust of that impulse is fading. Fiscal spending growth has dropped sharply and the authorities trying to cool rampant real estate speculation. The yield curve remains flat (Chart 10), as local funding costs rise on the back of the authorities attempt to mitigate capital outflows, and loan demand remains weak. Persistent weakness in the Chinese currency may reflect a lack of confidence in local returns, i.e. sub-par growth. All of that argues against expecting a major impetus to raw materials demand, at a time when the materials sector total wage bill is inflating more aggressively. Our Cyclical Macro Indicator for the materials sector is hitting new lows (Chart 10), heralding earnings underperformance, underscoring that below-benchmark allocations remain appropriate. The S&P chemicals group represents for than 70% of the overall materials market cap. It has underperformed since its peak and our underweight call in 2014, pulled lower by the soaring U.S. dollar and sagging industry productivity (Chart 11). Net earnings revisions have been consistently revised lower over the past few years, and are unlikely to recover without a reflationary push (global real yields are shown inverted, second panel, Chart 11) that revives chemical final demand. Analysts have latched on to the firming in global purchasing manager survey sentiment, aggressively pushing up sales growth expectations in recent months (Chart 12). Clearly, manufacturing sector expansion is expected to reverse the contraction in chemical output growth (Chart 12). Chart 10Higher PMIs Are Not Enough Higher PMIs Are Not Enough Higher PMIs Are Not Enough Chart 11Higher Yields Are A Bad Omen Higher Yields Are A Bad Omen Higher Yields Are A Bad Omen Chart 12Expectations Are Inflated Expectations Are Inflated Expectations Are Inflated However, this may be yet another case of analysts chronically overestimating the industry's earnings power. Global manufacturing improvement seems likely to accrue mostly to firms outside the U.S. Chart 13 shows that chemicals relative performance is heavily influenced by the U.S. dollar. Valuations and sentiment are tightly linked with chemical export growth (Chart 13), as the latter represent 14% of total U.S. exports. The U.S. dollar surge is diverting orders away from U.S. manufacturers: German chemical new orders have surged, and the IFO survey of chemical industry executives signals optimism about the future (Chart 14). Chart 13The Dollar Is Hurting The U.S. ... The Dollar Is Hurting The U.S. ... The Dollar Is Hurting The U.S. ... Chart 14... But Helping Foreign Competitors ... But Helping Foreign Competitors ... But Helping Foreign Competitors U.S. executives appear to be equally confident, but that optimism is misplaced. The American Chemical Council expects U.S. chemical exports to increase 7% a year through 2021. Over $170B is expected to be invested in U.S. chemical manufacturing capacity, representing nearly 25% of the total industry size, which is anticipated to boost the chemical trade surplus to new records. So far, roughly $76B of projects has either been completed or is under construction. If these planned projects all come to fruition, our concern is that new capacity will be idle rather than productive. The industry is in the crosshairs of anti-globalization and protectionism, and a strong U.S. dollar and rising domestic cost structures threaten to reduce competitiveness. Chemical imports are a fairly large portion of sales, rendering profitability vulnerable should an import-tax ever be introduced. From a cyclical standpoint, deflationary pressures are already very acute. Chemical capacity is growing much faster than production, warning that pricing power will be under significant pressure (Chart 15). Many chemical products are destined for interest rate-sensitive end markets such as autos, underscoring that a Fed tightening cycle is a headwind. While capacity expansion was planned when interest rates and feedstock costs were expected to remain at rock bottom levels for the foreseeable future, this is no longer the case. Chemical companies can either use natural gas (ethane) or oil (naphtha) as a primary feedstock. U.S. production is largely ethane-based, while global capacity is geared to naphtha. Rising U.S. natural gas prices are undermining the U.S. input cost advantage (Chart 16). Chart 15Persistent Deflation Pressures Persistent Deflation Pressures Persistent Deflation Pressures Chart 16U.S. Cost Structures Are Unattractive U.S. Cost Structures Are Unattractive U.S. Cost Structures Are Unattractive Increased capacity has also put significant upward pressure on wage costs, as our proxy for the total wage bill is rising at a high single-digit rate (Chart 16). With capital spending slated to stay robust in the coming years, it will likely continue to take a larger share of sales, impairing profit margins. While the planned merger between heavyweights Dow Chemical and Dupont may eventually help to rationalize costs, this is a necessary but not sufficient step in the face of a loss of global market share. Without accelerating sales, U.S. chemical makers will be hard pressed to improve productivity sufficiently to reverse the slide in relative forward earnings estimates. Bottom Line: The S&P materials sector hasn't been able to outperform during a period of improving global manufacturing activity, raising doubts about its performance potential when global output growth inevitably slows. Part of this reflects the challenging outlook for the sector heavyweight chemicals index, and we recommend staying underweight both. The symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CHEM - APD, ARG, CF, DOW, EMN, ECL, DD, FMC, IFF, LYB, MON, MOS, PPG, PX, SHW. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Dear client, This week, we are sending you an abbreviated version of our weekly bulletin as we are also publishing a piece written by our colleague Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President for our Global Investment Strategy service. This report, titled “U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017”, deals in great details with the Republican tax plans. In this report, Peter analyses the economic and financial market implications of the plan and concludes it is likely to be an additional support to the dollar bull market if it gets implemented in full, but not one without repercussions. I trust you will find this report very interesting and relevant. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Feature After continuing to sell off, the dollar regained some composure toward the end of the week. Not only did an elevated CPI print for December contribute to this rally, but so did Fed Chair Janet Yellen's comment that the U.S. economy was getting closer to the FOMC objectives and that the Fed was now closer to being capable of raising rates multiple times a year between now and 2019. Chart 1Froth Had Dissipated##br## From Treasury Yields Froth Had Dissipated From Treasury Yields Froth Had Dissipated From Treasury Yields Additionally, we had been expecting a correction in the dollar as we worried that U.S. bond yields would retrace some of their ascent. The pullback materialized and U.S. bond yields traded in line with our fair value estimate earlier this week (Chart 1). This meant that much of the froth in the dollar had dissipated. Based on these developments, is it time to buy the dollar again? On a cyclical basis, the dollar will make new highs in 12-18 months. However, short-term considerations remain complex. There are two President Trump out there: "Good Trump" and "Bad Trump". Good Trump is a president that talks about deregulation and tax cuts as well as various stimulus measures. This is the president that turbo charged the dollar after the election on hopes of a stronger U.S. economy. Bad Trump is the campaign Trump, the populist president that wants to revive protectionism and that promotes acrimonious international relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world, China in particular. The markets had expected Good Trump to be the first Trump to emerge, yet, the new president seems to have elected to present his Bad Trump profile first. In a way, this makes sense. Trump is focusing on the more economically painful parts of his program, campaign promises wanted by his electorate. This way, Good Trump can swoosh in and save the day by helping the economy closer to the mid-term election in late 2018, in the aim of solidifying the Republican control of Congress. With the 10-year yield back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is not pricing in any flare up of tensions with China, nor any deflationary shock that could emanate from such tensions (Chart 2). Investors were hoping that the talks of stimulus and deregulation would come first, instead they are getting a president that bullies corporations and build up tensions in Asia. The deflationary nature of the tension comes from the reality that while the Chinese economy has improved, China remains handicapped by a large debt load and a low demand for credit. It is ill equipped to handle foreign shocks. Moreover, the easing in Chinese monetary conditions will soon lose steam. Chinese monetary conditions eased because Chinese real rates fell from nearly 12% to -2% on the back of a powerful rebound in the Chinese producer prices (PPI) (Chart 3). This improvement in PPI was itself a byproduct of a rebound in commodity inflation. However, this rebound is soon behind us. Commodity prices troughed in Q1 2016, and have recently slowed their pace of ascent. This means that in the coming months, Chinese PPI will rollover as well and Chinese real borrowing costs will rise again (Chart 4). Chart 2All Must ##br##Go Well All Must Go Well All Must Go Well Chart 3Can Chinese Monetary ##br##Conditions Improve Further? Can Chinese Monetary Conditions Improve Further? Can Chinese Monetary Conditions Improve Further? Chart 4The Commodity Rebound Was A Key Factor##br## Behind The Chinese PPI Rebound The Commodity Rebound Was A Key Factor Behind The Chinese PPI Rebound The Commodity Rebound Was A Key Factor Behind The Chinese PPI Rebound This could prove problematic for China where loan demand remains very tepid, pointing to a potential down leg in Chinese industrial activity (Chart 5). This also raises the specter of renewed devaluation pressures on the Chinese yuan, as this would create another valve to alleviate deflationary pressures in the Chinese economy (Chart 6). Further RMB weakness would be welcomed neither by Trump, nor by the markets. Chart 5Chinese Loan Demand ##br##Remains Moribund Chinese Loan Demand Remains Moribund Chinese Loan Demand Remains Moribund Chart 6The RMB Is Another Relief Value For##br## Chinese Deflationary Pressures The RMB Is Another Relief Value For Chinese Deflationary Pressures The RMB Is Another Relief Value For Chinese Deflationary Pressures Taking all these factors into account, we remain warry of betting on a strong dollar against the euro and the yen in the coming weeks, at least not until bonds become cheap on our fair value gauge, reflecting these Chinese deflationary risks and a higher geopolitical risk premium. Chart 7EUR/GBP Is Misaligned##br## With Fundamentals EUR/GBP Is Misaligned With Fundamentals EUR/GBP Is Misaligned With Fundamentals Also, this means that we could see a dichotomy emerge between the narrow dollar (DXY) and the broad dollar. While lower bond yields are supportive of the euro and the yen, they do very little for EM and commodity currencies. In fact, EM and commodity currencies are highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and will be vulnerable to any flare up of tensions between China and the U.S., especially after currencies like the AUD and the CAD had already rallied 5% and 4% respectively since the last week of 2016. Thus, we would recommend investors favor risk-off currencies like the euro, the Swiss franc, and the yen at the expense of the AUD, NZD, CAD, and NOK. For the GBP, last week, we published an optimistic take on the British economy. We are looking to short EUR/GBP as rate differentials are still widely bearish of that cross (Chart 7). However, we warned that in anticipation of the actual triggering of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the GBP could come under duress. A risk-off event would only strengthen this case. Thus, we remain confident in our preferred strategy to short EUR/GBP once it hits 0.93. Bottom Line: The dollar correction is advanced but is now likely to become more differentiated. Tensions created by a protectionist and bellicose Trump are likely to push bonds into expensive territory. While the attending bond rally could support the euro, the Swiss franc, and the yen against the dollar, these same tensions are likely to support the dollar against EM and commodity currencies. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights House Republicans are pushing for a radical overhaul of the existing tax code, including adding a "border adjustment" mechanism that would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. Despite President Trump's apparent mixed feelings about border taxation, we see a 50% chance that some version of the proposal will be implemented. This is a higher probability than the market currently is discounting. The trade-weighted dollar will rally by another 5% even in the absence of any tax changes, but could rise by 15% if the border adjustment tax is introduced. If the latter were to happen, it would take some time for the dollar to rise to its new equilibrium level. This, in conjunction with sticky import and export prices, would likely lead to a temporary narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit. Such an outcome could prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. Investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. A stronger dollar will push down commodity prices and hurt external borrowers with dollar-denominated loans. A protectionist backlash against the U.S. might ensue. We are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32%, and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Feature Making The Tax Code Great Again? Republicans in Congress are proposing an ambitious revamp of the tax code. A central element of their plan is the replacement of the existing corporate income tax with a so-called "destination-based cash flow tax." Key features of this plan include: Cutting the current federal corporate tax from a top rate of 35% to 20%. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital expenditures immediately, rather than writing them off over many years. Disallowing businesses from deducting interest expenses when calculating their tax bills. Moving to a system of territorial taxation, meaning that taxes would only be assessed on the value added of goods consumed in the United States. Since not all goods that are produced in the U.S. are consumed in the U.S., and not all goods that are consumed in the U.S. are produced in the U.S., a destination-based system requires what is known as a "border adjustment." Such an adjustment would tax the value added of imports and rebate the value added of exports at an equivalent rate. While border adjustments are routinely used in other settings - most notably by countries that have VATs - their application to corporate income taxes is a novel idea. As such, it is not surprising that the proposal has generated significant confusion among investors. With that in mind, we offer our thoughts on the matter using a Q&A format. Q: How exactly would a border adjustment on corporate income taxes work? A: Under current U.S. law, corporate income taxes are assessed on worldwide profits, which are the difference between worldwide revenues and worldwide costs. The introduction of a border tax adjustment would change the tax system to one where taxes are assessed only on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs (i.e., revenues derived in the U.S. minus costs incurred in the U.S.). Table 1 offers a simplified example to illustrate this point. Consider three types of companies: 1) A purely domestic producer whose revenues and costs are realized at home; 2) An exporter whose revenues are entirely derived from abroad but whose costs are all incurred in the U.S.; 3) An importer whose revenues are completely generated in the U.S. but whose costs are all incurred abroad. Suppose that all three companies have revenues of $100 and costs of $60 - implying $40 in pre-tax profits - and face a corporate tax rate of 20%. Before the border adjustment, each company would pay a tax of $8 ($40 times 0.2). The border adjustment is zero for the domestic producer. However, it would impose an additional tax of $12 on the importer ($60 times 0.2), while giving the exporter a rebate of $20 ($100 times 0.2). In the end, the importer and exporter face final tax bills of $20 and -$12, respectively, while the domestic producer continues to pay $8. Note that this conforms with the tax paid on domestic revenues minus domestic costs (for the domestic producer, domestic revenue minus domestic cost is equal to $40; for the exporter it is equal to -$60; and for the importer, it is equal to $100). Q: A tax on imports and a subsidy on exports? Sounds like massive protectionism! A: That depends on the extent to which the dollar appreciates. As Table 1 shows, if the dollar appreciates by 1/(1-tax rate) = 1/(1-0.2) = 25%, there would be no impact on the trade balance or on the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy. This is because the stronger dollar would nullify the subsidy on exports, while reducing import costs by precisely the amount necessary to restore importers' after-tax profits to their original level. Chart Q: This seems like splitting hairs. If a country imposes a 20% tax on imports, most people would still regard this as a protectionist act, even if a currency appreciation offsets the impact. A: That's why a corresponding export subsidy is necessary. That may sound strange since export subsidies are also seen as protectionist measures, but consider the following: Imagine that the government only taxes imports. A tax on imports would curb import demand, implying less demand for foreign currency. This would push up the value of the dollar, leading to lower import prices. How high would the dollar go? Suppose it rose so much that the decline in import prices exactly offset the tariff, thereby restoring import volumes (and importer profits) back to their original level. Is that a stable equilibrium? The answer is no because a stronger dollar would also reduce the demand for U.S. exports, causing the trade deficit to swell. Thus, for the trade balance to remain unchanged, the dollar would have to rise only part of the way, leaving importers worse off than before the tariff was introduced. Such a policy would be protectionist because it would favor U.S.-based companies that produce for the domestic market over foreign exporters. Only in the case where importers are subject to a tax and exporters receive a subsidy will the dollar strengthen to the point that neither exports nor imports change. Intuitively, this is because an export subsidy indirectly benefits importers by pushing up the value of the dollar, while directly benefiting exporters by offsetting the effect of a stronger dollar on profits. Q: If there is no change in the trade balance, what is the advantage of border-adjusting the corporate income tax? A: Contrary to Donald Trump's assertion that border adjustments are "too complicated," their chief advantage is their simplicity. Accurately assessing taxes on worldwide income is hard. Companies routinely engage in practices that purposely lower taxable profits. In particular, importers may overstate the value of their imports and exporters may understate the value of their exports. In a world where many companies have overseas subsidiaries, such "transfer pricing" machinations are easy to pull off. Border adjustments eliminate such incentives in one fell swoop. Recall that with a border adjustment, taxes are assessed on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs - both of which the IRS has the means to monitor. Yes, a U.S. company that overstates imports will be able to report a lower gross profit to the IRS, but now it will be on the hook for a higher import tax. What it puts in one pocket it takes from the other. Likewise, an exporter that understates its overseas sales will end up with a lower gross profit, but will now receive a smaller subsidy. Q: And I suppose that because the U.S. imports more than it exports, the border adjustment will end up raising additional revenues? A: That is correct. The annual U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $500 billion. A border adjustment tax rate of 20% would thus raise $100 billion in additional revenue. Given that the corporate income tax brings in about $350 billion, this would allow corporate taxes to be substantially cut without any loss in overall revenue. And this calculation excludes any indirect revenue that would accrue to the Treasury from reducing the incentive for U.S. companies to engage in profit-shifting behavior. Keep in mind, however, that the revenue boost from the border adjustment will decline if the U.S. trade deficit narrows over time. To the extent that the U.S. must finance its trade deficit through the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, and property, it is possible that foreigners will one day decide to swap all these assets in exchange for U.S. goods. This would lead to an improvement in the U.S. trade balance. Indeed, to the extent that the U.S. is a net debtor to the rest of the world, it is possible that the average future U.S. trade balance will be positive. If that were to happen, the government would lose revenue from the border adjustment over the long haul. Meanwhile, a 25% appreciation in the greenback would reduce the dollar value of the assets that Americans hold abroad, without much of a corresponding decline in U.S. external liabilities. A reasonable estimate is that this would impose a paper loss on the U.S. of about 13% of GDP.1 Q: Ouch! But this assumes that a 20% border adjustment tax will lead to a 25% appreciation in the dollar. That is a mighty big can opener your fellow economists are assuming! What's to say this actually happens? A: Good point. Less than 10% of the turnover in the global foreign exchange market is directly related to the cross-border trade in goods and services. The rest represents financial market transactions. There are many things that can influence the value of the dollar beside trade flows. For example, suppose the government introduces a border adjustment tax, but the Federal Reserve fails to raise rates sufficiently fast in response to rising inflation stemming from a narrowing trade deficit. In that case, U.S. real rates could actually decline, leading to a weaker dollar. Our sense is that this won't happen, but the point is that there is no automatic link between a border tax and the dollar. Much depends on how the Fed responds and the underlying economic conditions. And even if the Fed does hike rates to keep the economy from overheating, two important forces will limit the extent of any dollar appreciation: First, questions about the timing and magnitude of the border adjustment tax - including the possibility that such a measure could be reversed by a future Congress - are likely to lead to only a partial appreciation in the dollar. Second, other central banks - particularly in emerging markets - are liable to take steps to limit the dollar's ascent so as not to place too great a burden on borrowers with dollar-denominated debt. Q: So what happens to countries with hard currency pegs to the dollar? Borrowers with dollar-denominated loans will be spared, but won't these countries end up suffering due to a sharp loss of competitiveness against other economies that have more flexible currencies? A: Correct. It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Assuming that countries with exchange rate pegs to the dollar are strong enough to fend off a speculative attack, they will still need to engineer an equivalent real depreciation of their currencies via a decline in their nominal wages relative to U.S. wages - what economists call an "internal devaluation." That could impose a deflationary impulse on those economies. Q: You're losing me. A: Think about an extreme case - one where all countries have currency pegs to the dollar. How would the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax work then? The answer is that initially, a tax on U.S. imports, combined with a subsidy on U.S. exports, would lead to a smaller trade deficit. This would cause the U.S. economy to overheat, putting upward pressure on prices and wages. By definition, an improving trade balance in the U.S. implies a worsening trade balance in the rest of the world. This would sap demand in other countries, putting downward pressure on prices and wages abroad. The adjustment will be complete only after relative wages have shifted enough to restore the U.S. trade balance to its original level. The important point is that in a world where some countries have flexible exchange rates while others have fixed exchange rates or dirty floats, the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax will come through some combination of a stronger nominal dollar, higher U.S. inflation, and lower inflation abroad. Q: Bullish for the dollar, but bearish for U.S. bonds, correct? A: Precisely. The degree to which bond yields adjust around the world depends on the extent to which nominal exchange rates and domestic prices are sticky. If exchange rates are slow to change, more of the adjustment has to occur through higher inflation in the U.S. and lower inflation everywhere else. But even if nominal exchange rates adjust quickly, sticky goods prices would still push up U.S. bond yields. To see this point, consider what would happen if the dollar appreciated by 25% in response to the introduction of a border adjustment tax, but neither import prices nor export prices (expressed in U.S. dollars) changed. If that were to happen, the profit margins of U.S. importers would tumble because they would now have to pay an import tax but would not benefit from lower import prices. Meanwhile, the margins of U.S. exporters would soar as export prices stayed firm and they received a subsidy from the government. The result would be less imports and more exports, and hence, an improved trade balance. This would raise U.S. aggregate demand and put upward pressure on inflation and Treasury yields. Considering that 97% of U.S. exports and 93% of U.S. imports are denominated in dollars, such an outcome is hardly far-fetched. The bottom line is that in the "real world," the introduction of a border adjustment tax would cause Treasurys to sell off and the dollar to rally. Q: What sort of numbers are we talking about? A: Assuming a 20% border tax is introduced, a reasonable guess is that the trade-weighted dollar would rise by 10% over a 12-month period above and beyond our current forecast of a 5% gain. This would imply 15% upside from current levels. The 10-year Treasury yield would probably rise to about 3%. Q: It still puzzles me how you can claim that bond yields will rise if the dollar strengthens. Wouldn't a stronger dollar normally lead to lower bond yields? A: Your premise is wrong. It is not the stronger dollar that leads to higher bond yields. It is a third factor - namely the improvement in the trade balance arising from the decision to tax imports and subsidize exports - that causes both the dollar and bond yields to rise. This is similar to what happens when the government loosens fiscal policy. Mind you, at some point the positive correlation between the dollar and bond yields could break down. If the dollar rises too much, emerging markets will crumble under the stress. This will trigger safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, leading to a stronger dollar and lower yields. Such an outcome is not our base case, but it cannot be dismissed. Q: Got it. Presuming that the global economy holds up, it sounds like a border tax would be great news for Boeing, but bad news for Walmart? Chart 1 A: Yes, but there are two important qualifications to consider. First, it is possible that the dollar overshoots its new long-term equilibrium level, so that the pain to Boeing from the appreciation of the greenback ends up outweighing the benefits from the export subsidy it receives. Second, given the potential economic and financial dislocations from the shift to a destination-based tax system, there is likely to be some delay between when the tax bill is signed into law and when it is implemented. And even once implementation begins, the adjustment in tax rates may be phased in only gradually. Since the dollar will rise in anticipation of all this, it is possible that exporters will actually suffer initially, while importers receive a temporary boost to profits. Nevertheless, we think that investors will see through the near-term hit to exporter margins and focus on the medium-term gains. As such, equity investors should maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that heavily rely on imports (Chart 1). Q: This assumes that the market has not fully priced in this outcome already. What are the chances that this border adjustment tax proposal actually sees the light of day? A: The border tax idea originated in the House of Representatives and has its strongest support there. There might be more opposition in the Senate, but this could be overcome if enough Democrats with protectionist leanings can be found. President Trump panned the idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.2 He noted that "Anytime I hear about border adjustment, I don't love it... because usually it means we're going to get adjusted into a bad deal. That's what happens." Trump's comments suggest he may not fully understand how border adjustments work. This implies that he might be persuaded to go along with the idea if Republican legislators are able to reach a "great deal" on adjustments in his eyes, whatever that means. Subjectively, we would assign 50% probability to a border tax being introduced in some form or another, although our sense is that it will be somewhat watered down so as not to generate major dislocations for the economy. This might entail excluding certain types of imports from a border tax if they are consumed disproportionately by the poor or represent an important input for U.S. manufacturing firms. Apparel and energy products would probably be on that list. It might also entail reducing the border adjustment tax to a lower level, say 10%, as Tom Barrack, head of Donald Trump's inaugural committee, has suggested. It is hard to know how much of this is already reflected in asset prices. The dollar fell after the WSJ article was published, but that may have had less to do with border adjustments and more to do with Trump's comment that he prefers a weaker dollar - an unprecedented statement for a U.S. president. Goldman Sachs' securities group has constructed two baskets using firm-level data, one comprised of "destination tax winners" and the other of "destination tax losers."3 The loser basket actually outperformed in the immediate aftermath of the election. While the relative performance of the winner basket has recovered more recently, it still remains below where it was last April (Chart 2). The limited reaction to the prospect of a border adjustment tax has been echoed in the fact that market expectations of the future volatility of the dollar has not changed much since the election, despite the possibility that the coming legislative debate could lead to wild swings in the greenback (Chart 3). Chart 2 Chart 3Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated On balance, we conclude that investors are understating the likelihood of even a watered down border adjustment tax being introduced as part of a comprehensive tax reform program. This is broadly consistent with our client discussions, which have revealed that most investors - with a few notable exceptions - are only vaguely aware of the issue. Q: Won't the WTO rule against a border adjustment tax? That could explain why investors are discounting it. A: Yes, it probably will. The WTO permits border adjustments in the case of "indirect" taxes such VATs, but not in the case of direct taxes such as income or corporate profit taxes. Granted, the U.S. has brushed off WTO decisions in the past, such as when it ignored the trade body's ruling that U.S. laws restricting internet gambling contravened the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Considering that Donald Trump threatened to pull the U.S. out of the WTO during the election campaign, such an outcome cannot be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the border tax issue, even the Trump administration is likely to think twice about running afoul of WTO rules. Nevertheless, it might be possible to modify the border adjustment proposal to make it WTO-compliant. The distinction between direct and indirect taxes is one of those things self-styled experts like to pretend is important, but is not. It does not really matter whether a tax is levied on the sale of a good or service, or whether it is levied on income. In the end, someone has to pay the tax - be it a worker or a shareholder. The adoption by the U.S. of a border-adjusted destination tax would move the global economy in the direction of greater harmonization, not away from it. As noted at the outset, most other countries border adjust their value-added taxes. They do this so that their VATs mirror a consumption tax, as Table 2 illustrates with a simple example. Conceptually, a corporate cash flow tax coupled with a payroll tax functions in much the same way as a VAT (bottom part of Table 2). The U.S. already has both a corporate income and a payroll tax, so it is not that far away from having a VAT. All that is missing is a few tweaks to depreciation rules and the addition of the border adjustment. Chart Yes, the dollar would strengthen if that were to happen, but this would put the greenback on par with other currencies. Chart 4 shows that the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the G7 since 1990, despite the fact that the dollar has traded on average 9% below its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over this period. One of the reasons this has occurred is that other G7 economies have a VAT, whereas the U.S. does not (Chart 5). This has kept the dollar weaker than it otherwise would have been. Chart 4The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason Chart 5 Q: Okay, let's wrap this up. What are the main investment implications I should take away from this? A: Our main takeaway is that investors are underestimating the likelihood that the U.S. adopts a destination-based tax system. This suggests that the risks to the dollar are to the upside, as are the risks to U.S. Treasury yields. Global investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. The implications for global equities are more nuanced. It may take some time for the dollar to adjust to the border tax. This, combined with the fact that import and export prices tend to be sticky in the short run, implies that the U.S. trade deficit will decline, boosting U.S. aggregate demand in the process. While that is potentially good news for U.S. corporate profits, the benefits will be curtailed by the fact that the U.S. economy is approaching full employment. This means that any further stimulus could simply result in higher real wages for workers without any offsetting increase in unit sales for U.S. companies. A shrinking U.S. trade deficit will diminish America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." This is problematic for export-dependent emerging markets. While a border adjustment may be justifiable on economic grounds, politically, it could be seen as the first volley in a global trade war. This could sour sentiment towards EM stocks. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar would harm emerging markets with high levels of dollar-denominated debt such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Chile, while also weighing on commodity prices. We recommend that investors underweight EM stocks relative to their DM counterparts. With these considerations in mind, we are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32% and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 U.S. external assets amount to 133% of GDP, while foreign liabilities stand at 175% of GDP. About 68% of U.S. external assets are denominated in foreign currency, compared with only 16% of external liabilities. Thus, the paper loss to the U.S. from a 25% appreciation in the dollar would be (175*0.16-133*0.68)*(1-1/1.25) = 12.5% of GDP. 2 Please see "Donald Trump Warns On House Republican Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, dated January 16, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 3 The Bloomberg tickers for these baskets are GSCBDTW1 and GSCBDTL1. For more information, please see "US Daily: What Policy Changes Is The Equity Market Expecting?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research, dated January 11, 2017.

Highlights China's supply-side structural reforms will focus mainly on its coal and steel markets this year. In addition, environmental policies will become stricter in 2017, as Beijing puts more weight on environmental protection than economic development. As as result, supply growth will slow, particularly in steel markets, which will be good news for global steel producers and bad news for iron ore exporters in Australia and Brazil. While we are more bearish on iron ore than steel due to supply-side reforms and stricter environmental policies, we remain cautious getting short iron ore, given the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures are backwardated (prompt prices exceed deferred prices). This indicates buyers are willing to pay more for prompt delivery (e.g., next week) than they are for deferred delivery (e.g., next year). Energy: Overweight. The Saudi-Russia production deal will slow the rate of growth in supply relative to demand, which will tighten physical markets. This will cause inventories to draw, and the backwardation in crude to deepen. Our long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI recommendation is up 700%. We are long at +$0.04/bbl, and will risk the spread going to -$0.05/bbl. We will take profits at $0.50/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. Supply-side reforms, coupled with environmental restrictions will slow the growth of steel production in China this year, benefiting producers ex-China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets will become increasing volatile, with the Fed likely to keep any rate-hike decision on hold until it has greater clarity re the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy intentions. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's most recent supply-demand balances continue to paint a bearish picture for grains, with global ending stocks expected to grow. Feature China will continue its supply-side structural reforms this year, focusing mainly on its coal and steel markets. China environmental policies will become stricter in 2017. This year will mark the first time the central government puts more weight on environmental protection over economic development in evaluating officials' performance since 1949, when the People's Republic of China was established. Supply growth will be slower than last year due to continuing reforms, and stricter environmental policies in the country. Among base metals and bulks, the steel and iron ore markets will be most affected. This will be good news for global steel producers and bad news for global iron ore producers. We are more bearish on iron ore than steel strategically, due to these supply-side reforms, stricter environmental policies, scrap steel substitution, and rising global iron ore supply. That said, we remain cautious getting short iron ore, given the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures are backwardated (prompt prices exceed deferred prices). This indicates buyers are willing to pay more for prompt delivery (e.g., next week) than they are for deferred delivery (e.g., next year). We are downgrading nickel from bullish to neutral, both tactically and strategically. We also are downgrading our tactically bullish stance on aluminum to neutral, as the Indonesian government on January 12 unexpectedly allowed exports of nickel ore and bauxite under certain conditions. China's Supply-Side Reforms In 2017 In 2016, steel prices rallied more than 90% from year-end 2015 levels, but Chinese crude steel and steel products production rose a mere 0.4% and 1.3% yoy, respectively. Back in 2009, when steel prices rose about 30% from November 2008 to August 2009, production grew 12.9% and 17.8% yoy for Chinese crude steel and the output of steel products, respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1China: A Slower Steel Production##br## Recovery Than In 2009 China: A Slower Steel Production Recovery Than In 2009 China: A Slower Steel Production Recovery Than In 2009 One reason for these disparate performances can be found in the massive production cuts made in China last year to crude steel capacity. In February 2016, China's central government announced that it planned to cut 100 to 150 million metric tons (mmt) of crude steel capacity over the five-year period of 2016-2020. While the country aimed to cut 45 mmt in 2016, the actual reduction accelerated in 2016H2 making the full year decrease much larger. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), 70 mmt of crude steel capacity was taken off line last year, equivalent to 6.2% of total crude steel production capacity in China. This explains, in part, the much slower crude steel production recovery last year when compared to the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) recovery in 2009. How much crude steel production capacity will China cut in 2017? Even though last year's 70 mmt capacity cut means about half of the five-year 100-150 mmt capacity-cut target was already achieved, the Chinese government does not show any sign of moderating its desire to see additional cuts. The Chinese Central Economic Work Conference (December 14-16, 2016) emphasized that 2017 will be a year to deepen supply-side structural reforms. Although the central government still has not finalized its 2017 target, we believe a further 40-50 mmt cut in 2017 is possible. For example, China's largest steel producing province - Hebei - has already announced its 2017 crude steel capacity reduction target, which will be 14.39 mmt, similar to its 2016 target of 14.22 mmt. We would note here that the actual cut for the Hebei province in 2016 was 16.24 mmt, much higher than the target, indicating officials will seek to err on the high side when it comes to taking production off line. In December 2016, the country launched a nationwide crackdown on production of so-called shoddy steel, also known as ditiaogang in Chinese - low-quality crude steel made from scrap metal, which is commonly used to produce substandard construction steel products. This material accounts for about 4% of Chinese crude steel output. Last week, the Chinese government ordered a full ban on "shoddy steel" production to be completed before June 30, 2017. This month, 12 inspection groups were sent to major shoddy steel producing provinces to oversee the implementation of the directive. In 2017, the Chinese government also plans to: rein in new steel production capacity; scrutinize new projects; push for more mergers; and generally tighten supervision in the steel sector. In early January, China's top economic planner - the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) - toughened its tiered electricity pricing to limit availabilities to outdated steel producers, and to advance its goal of capacity cuts. According to the NRDC website, the new measures raised the price paid by "outdated" steelmakers by 66.7% to 0.5 yuan per kWh, effective on Jan. 1, 2017. Outdated steelmakers, in the government's reckoning, are those scheduled to be phased out - for example, those shoddy steel producers - most of which are privately owned small- or medium- scale mills. Bottom Line: A further capacity cut will limit Chinese steel production growth in 2017. China's Environmental Policies In 2017 In 2016, the Chinese government increased the frequency at which it sent environmental inspection teams to major metal-producing provinces and cities, to ensure the smelters and refiners comply with state environmental rules. Factories that failed to meet environmental standards were ordered to permanently or temporarily shut down, depending on the severity of their violations. This year, with persistent and intensifying smog becoming a greater threat to the health of China's population, environmental policies will only get stricter, resulting in more frequent supply disruptions, especially in its steel industry. In addition to plant-specific environmental measures, in late 2016, China rolled out rules to evaluate the "green" efforts of local governments. For the first time since 1949, when the People's Republic of China was established, the central government indicated it would put more weight on environmental protection than on economic development, as measured by GDP, in evaluating local government officials' performance. This likely will reduce the local governments' incentive to support unqualified or unprofitable steel/aluminum production. Bottom Line: China's stricter environmental policies will cause more supply disruptions and increase production costs for the Chinese metal sector, especially the steel industry. Our Views On Iron Ore And Steel In 2017 We are strategically neutral on steel prices and bearish on iron ore prices. Supply-side reforms and stricter environmental policies in China likely will result in zero growth or even a small contraction in Chinese steel production, which may well support steel prices while reducing iron ore demand. This will be good news for global steel producers ex-China, and bad news for global iron ore producers. China is determined to cull all "shoddy steel" production by the end of June, which will make considerable volumes of scrap steel available to be used in good-quality steel production. Chinese steel producers are currently willing to replace iron ore with scrap steel in their steel production, given scrap steel prices are cheap versus iron ore and steel product prices (Chart 2). In addition, using scrap as an input to produce crude steel will save steel producers money on coking coal, the price of which has surged over the past year. Chinese steel demand growth may remain robust in 2017H1. Last year's stimulus still has not run out of steam, and this year's fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative.1 Raw-material costs in the form of iron ore, coking coal and oil soared versus levels seen last year, which means the production costs of steel now are much higher than last year. This will support steel prices (Chart 3). Chart 2More Scrap Steel Will Replace##br## Iron Ore In Steel Production More Scrap Steel Will Replace Iron Ore In Steel Production More Scrap Steel Will Replace Iron Ore In Steel Production Chart 3Cost Push Will Support ##br##Steel Prices Cost Push Will Support Steel Prices Cost Push Will Support Steel Prices Steel product inventories at the major cities in China are still low; producers' inventory holdings have declined to levels last seen in 2014, which also will be supportive of steel prices (Chart 4). China's iron ore inventories are high, while domestic iron ore production is recovering (Chart 5, panels 1 and 2). With slowing domestic steel production, Chinese iron ore import growth likely will be subdued this year (Chart 5, panel 3). Global iron ore supplies are increasing. The "Big Three" producers - Vale, Rio Tinto, and BHP - all plan to boost production in response to profitable iron ore prices this year. Indeed, this month, Vale started its first iron-ore shipments from the giant new S11D mine. Chart 4Low Inventory Supports Steel Prices As Well Low Inventory Supports Steel Prices As Well Low Inventory Supports Steel Prices As Well Chart 5Limited Chinese Iron Ore Import Growth In 2017 Limited Chinese Iron Ore Import Growth In 2017 Limited Chinese Iron Ore Import Growth In 2017 Bottom Line: The outlook for steel prices this year is brighter relative to iron ore in 2017, although, the backwardation in the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures suggests markets may be pricing in tighter iron-ore supply in the near term. We will explore this in future research. Downgrading Our Nickel And Aluminum Views We are downgrading nickel from bullish to neutral, both tactically and strategically. Chart 6Downgrading Nickel And Aluminum View Downgrading Nickel And Aluminum View Downgrading Nickel And Aluminum View In November, we expected the global nickel supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply. One major reason we were bullish nickel was that there was no sign Indonesia's export ban - imposed in January 2014 - would be removed. With elevated global nickel output, surging Chinese nickel pig iron (NPI) imports, and rebounding Indonesian nickel ore exports, Chinese NPI production will recover in 2017, which will reduce the country's need for refined nickel imports (Chart 6). Our long Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract was stopped out for a 5.1% loss this week. We are no longer bullish nickel versus zinc. We also are downgrading our tactically bullish stance on aluminum to neutral, after the Indonesian government unexpectedly allowed exports of nickel ore and bauxite under certain conditions earlier this month. We are removing our buy limit order to go long Mar/17 aluminum contracts if it falls to $1,640/MT from our shopping list. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China Commodity Focus: How China's Monetary And Fiscal Policy Will Affect Metal Markets," dated January 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Grains/Softs Global Grain Stocks Set To Rise Overall: Despite some positive developments in the U.S. - where corn supplies are falling faster than demand - we remain underweight grains. This is largely because of the continued growth of production relative to consumption globally, which looks like it will lift global stocks by the end of the 2016-17 crop year in September. While we do expect a slight decrease in output this year, it is difficult to upgrade our view at this point (Table 1). Table 1World Grains Estimates - January 2017 China Commodity Focus: Supply Cuts, Environmental Restrictions Will Hit Metals China Commodity Focus: Supply Cuts, Environmental Restrictions Will Hit Metals Wheat: Worldwide, output growth in Argentina, Russia and the EU added 1.3mm tons of production to global supplies. In the U.S., ending stocks are projected to reach levels not seen since the late 1980s, according to the USDA. Global consumption, meanwhile, is projected to increase a mere 100k tons, according to the USDA, which will lift ending stocks 1.2mm tons by the end of the crop year to a record 253.3mm tons. Corn: U.S. production is expected to fall, which, along with higher usage in the ethanol market, will contribute to lower stocks. However, on a global basis, production is set to outstrip consumption resulting in higher ending stocks at the end of the crop year. Soybeans: Same story here: Production growth outstripping consumption, leaving ending stocks higher by close to 7% yoy, based on the USDA's estimates. Rice: In relative terms, the rice market has the most bullish fundamentals - global production and consumption are roughly balanced, leaving expected ending stocks slightly above last year's level. We continue to favor rice over the other grains (save wheat) for this reason. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 China Commodity Focus: Supply Cuts, Environmental Restrictions Will Hit Metals China Commodity Focus: Supply Cuts, Environmental Restrictions Will Hit Metals

Highlights Duration: In the absence of a major economic shock we will reinitiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation once the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index displays some mean reversion and positioning indicators are at less bearish extremes. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed could start to reduce the size of its balance sheet as early as the end of this year, but more likely in 2018. In any case, allowing securities to run off its portfolio will not have much of an impact on long-dated Treasury yields. MBS: Remain underweight MBS. Spreads are already low and have near-term upside based on the slope of the yield curve and the uptrend in interest rate volatility. Feature As we pointed out in our December 6 report, the bond selloff had proceeded too far, too fast, and was due for a pause. The 10-year Treasury yield then peaked at 2.6% on December 16 and has now fallen back to 2.4% as we go to press. It is of note that all of the reversal has come from the real component of yields while the compensation for expected inflation has remained firm (Chart 1). Chart 1Bear Market On Pause Bear Market On Pause Bear Market On Pause In our end-of-year "Themes For 2017" Special Report 1 we explained why we believe Treasury yields will level-off in the near term before heading higher throughout most of 2017. Now that we have entered this first "consolidation phase" it is time to consider what factors would cause us to reinstate a below-benchmark duration stance. But first, let us quickly recap our bearish 6-12 month outlook for Treasuries. The Cyclical Outlook For Treasury Yields Many of the headwinds that held back economic growth last year - including fiscal policy, inventory drawdowns and the impact of a distressed energy sector on capital spending - are poised to abate in 2017. With stronger growth and an already tight labor market, core inflation will continue to gradually rise toward the Fed's target. We expect trailing 12-month core PCE inflation will reach the Fed's 2% target near the end of 2017. Consequently, the cost of inflation protection embedded in bond yields will also converge with levels that are consistent with the Fed's target (Chart 2). We judge this level to be in the range of 2.4% to 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakevens. With the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate at 2.13% and the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate at 2%, long-dated Treasury yields have approximately 30-50 bps of upside from the inflation component alone. Chart 2Breakevens Still Too Low Breakevens Still Too Low Breakevens Still Too Low Chart 3Real Yields Also Biased Higher Real Yields Also Biased Higher Real Yields Also Biased Higher We are less certain about how much higher real yields might move during the next 12 months. However, the downside in real yields is surely limited. Chart 3 shows that changes in the 10-year real yield and changes in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter2 are almost always positively correlated. At present, the reading from our discounter is 46 bps, meaning the market is priced for about 2 more rate hikes during the next 12 months. Given our positive economic outlook, 2 or 3 rate hikes in 2017 sounds reasonable. Is Now The Time To Trim Duration? Barring any major economic setbacks we will consider three factors when making this decision: (i) valuation, (ii) economic policy uncertainty and (iii) sentiment & positioning. Factor 1: Valuation When we last shifted from a below-benchmark to a benchmark duration stance on December 6 the 10-year Treasury yield traded 14 bps above the fair value reading from our 2-factor Global PMI Model. At present, the 10-year yield is only 9 bps cheap on this model (Chart 4). In other words, valuation is essentially neutral. But since global PMI is likely to trend higher over the course of the year, we would be comfortable cutting duration at current valuation levels should the other two factors on our checklist fall into place. Factor 2: Uncertainty We've been talking a lot about uncertainty recently, mostly in reference to the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index exhibits a strong inverse correlation with Treasury yields over time and has shot higher during the past couple of months without a corresponding decrease in yields. When we consider the uncertainty index alongside Global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in our 3-factor model of Treasury yields, we find that the 10-year Treasury yield now appears 38 bps cheap (Chart 5). Chart 4Close To Fair Value... Close To Fair Value ... Close To Fair Value ... Chart 5...But Uncertainty Remains Elevated ... But Uncertainty Remains Elevated ... But Uncertainty Remains Elevated What is particularly odd is that the uncertainty index has diverged so sharply from measures of both consumer and small business confidence (Chart 6). This epic split can mean only one of two things: Chart 6Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Businesses and consumers are excessively optimistic in the face of an increasingly uncertain back-drop, or The uncertainty index is unable to distinguish between policy shocks with positive and negative economic implications We turn to history in an attempt to determine whether the warning from the uncertainty index should be heeded. Specifically, we searched for other one-month periods when there was a one standard deviation increase in the uncertainty index alongside increases in both consumer and small business confidence. Since 1991, ten months meet these criteria (Table 1). Table 1Periods Displaying One Standard Deviation Increase In Global Economic Policy##br## Uncertainty Index* And Increase In Both Consumer Sentiment Index** ##br##And Small Business Confidence Index*** (1991 To Present) Is It Time To Cut Duration? Is It Time To Cut Duration? First we note that Treasury yields declined in 7 out of the 10 flagged periods, but in many of those episodes the scale of the positive confidence shocks was not very large. The two months that appear most similar to the present situation are September 2008 and December 2013. Chart 7Investors Still Bearish Investors Still Bearish Investors Still Bearish The Fed announced the tapering of its asset purchases in December 2013 amidst signs of an improving economy. The hawkish Fed announcement and improving economic outlook sent yields higher on the month, while the uncertainty index spiked as a large number of Fed-related news stories hit the papers.4 One thing that makes December 2013 an imperfect comparable to the present day is that the uncertainty shock was relatively small compared to the confidence shocks. In September 2008 the confidence shocks were not as large as the uncertainty shock, much like today, and the 10-year Treasury yield managed a 2 bps increase. However, it is definitely unfair to draw a conclusion based on the extremely volatile price movements that were witnessed at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008. Based on the example of December 2013, we cannot decisively rule out the possibility that the uncertainty index is simply giving a false signal. However, if that is the case we would expect the uncertainty index to mean revert in relatively short order. Given the strong historical relationship between the uncertainty index and Treasury yields, we will wait for some mean reversion in the uncertainty index before shifting back to a below-benchmark duration stance. Factor 3: Sentiment & Positioning When we shifted from a below-benchmark to a benchmark duration stance measures of investor sentiment and positioning were at bearish extremes, sending a decisive signal that the bond market was oversold. As of today, some of these indicators have started to reverse course while others have not (Chart 7). Our BCA Bond Sentiment Indicator, a composite of a survey of bullish sentiment toward bonds and the 13-week rate of change in bond yields is no longer at an oversold extreme. However, net speculative positions in the 10-year Treasury futures contract have moved even further into "net short" territory. The J.P. Morgan client survey shows that investors remain below benchmark duration in aggregate, although active traders are no longer net short. Although some capitulation of shorts has already taken place, we will await some further normalization of positioning - particularly in net speculative futures - before reinitiating a below-benchmark duration stance. Bottom Line: In the absence of a major economic shock we will reinitiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation once the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index displays some mean reversion and positioning indicators are at less bearish extremes. The Fed's Balance Sheet & The Shortage Of Bills The minutes from December's FOMC meeting revealed that: Several participants noted circumstances that might warrant changes to the path for the federal funds rate could also have implications for the reinvestment of proceeds from maturing Treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities Since then, three different FOMC members have also spoken about the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker said that the Fed should consider shrinking its balance sheet once the fed funds rate reaches 1%.5 Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren made the case for more immediate action6 and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said the Fed should consider shrinking its balance sheet in 2017.7 Clearly, talk of unwinding the Fed's balance sheet is heating up. The Fed's only official stated position on this topic is that it will keep its balance sheet level until normalization of the fed funds rate is "well under way", a statement we have long interpreted to mean "until the fed funds rate is 1%, or perhaps even higher". As such, we would not expect any action on winding down the Fed's balance sheet until late this year at the earliest, and more likely in 2018. The Impact On Treasury Yields In any case, as we detailed in a report published in August 2015,8 we do not think that the Fed allowing its balance sheet to shrink will itself have much of an impact on Treasury yields. The reason relates to the way in which maturing Treasury securities are currently rolled over at auction and the persistent shortage of T-bills in the market. Chart 8Fed Runoff Will Increase##br## Issuance To Public ... Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public ... Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public ... At the moment, balances of matured Treasury securities are added to upcoming note/bond auctions as non-competitive bids. In other words, as Treasury securities mature the Fed buys an equal amount at upcoming Treasury auctions. If the Fed were to cease this reinvestment, that amount would need to be added to the competitive portion of the auctions and would greatly increase the gross issuance of Treasury debt to the public. For a sense of scale, we calculate that Treasury issuance to the public would need to increase by $426 bn in 2018 and $378 bn in 2019 if the Fed were to cease the reinvestment of its portfolio at the end of this year (Chart 8). We contend, however, that a significant portion of this extra financing requirement will be met through increased T-bill issuance and will therefore not impact long-dated Treasury yields. The Treasury department has had a stated goal of increasing T-bill issuance since May 2015 and bill supply as a percentage of total Treasury debt remains near a multi-decade low (Chart 9). Further, T-bills are still in high demand as evidenced by the fact that they are trading at a substantial premium to other money market instruments (Chart 10). This premium exists despite the fact that the Fed has been soaking up a lot of T-bill demand through its Overnight Reverse Repo facility (Chart 10, bottom panel). If the Fed were to phase this program out alongside a reduction in the size of its balance sheet - which is its current stated exit strategy - the shortage of T-bills would be exacerbated. Chart 9... But Mostly Through T-Bills ... But Mostly Through T-Bills ... But Mostly Through T-Bills Chart 10T-Bills In High Demand T-Bills In High Demand T-Bills In High Demand Of course there is a new regime about to enter the White House and the Treasury department, and also a lot of uncertainty about how large the deficit will be going forward. If the deficit is increased substantially then it would likely be necessary for the Treasury department to increase the size of both bill and coupon issuance in the years ahead. Bottom Line: It is necessary to consider both fiscal policy and the Fed's balance sheet together when forecasting Treasury issuance. Further, whatever the government's financing requirement, a considerable portion of it will be addressed through increased T-bill issuance in the years ahead. This will limit the impact on long-dated Treasury yields. A Quick Note On MBS Chart 11MBS Spreads Are Too Low MBS Spreads Are Too Low MBS Spreads Are Too Low Any unwind of the Fed's balance sheet will have a much greater impact on MBS spreads than on Treasury yields since it will add directly to the supply of MBS available to the public, which tends to correlate with MBS option-adjusted spreads (Chart 11). Of course, other factors such as the rate of prepayments will determine how quickly the Fed's MBS holdings run off and the state of the housing market will determine how much new mortgage origination takes place. We hope to explore these issues in more depth in the coming weeks. Of more immediate concern for MBS spreads though is the recent divergence between nominal spreads, rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 11, bottom two panels). MBS spreads have not widened in recent weeks despite curve steepening and rising rate vol. MBS spreads are already low compared to investment alternatives and have upside in the near term, especially if the yield curve continues to steepen, as we expect it will. Looking further out, the eventual wind down of the Fed's balance sheet is another risk the MBS market will have to face. Bottom Line: Remain underweight MBS. Spreads are already low and have near-term upside based on the slope of the yield curve and the uptrend in interest rate volatility. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 207", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Our 12-month discounter measures the expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months as discounted in the overnight index swap curve. 3 www.policyuncertainty.com 4 The uncertainty index is in part based on an algorithm that scans newspapers for coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty. 5 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-harker-idUSKBN14W1W4 6 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/reuters-america-interview-rosengren-urges-more-rate-hikes-slimmer-balance-sheet.html 7 http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-shrink-the-balance-sheet-bullard-says-2016-12 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Currencies: The Tail Wagging The Dog", dated August 18, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The elevated ratio of market cap-to-GDP discounts strong growth far into the future, suggesting that a market validation phase may be lurking. Capital markets-sensitive stocks have had a good run, but the six month outlook is more mixed than bullish. Lift the packaged food group to neutral following the price plunge, because expectations have undershot. Recent Changes S&P Packaged Foods Index - Lift to neutral, locking in a profit of 3%. Table 1 Performance Anxiety Performance Anxiety Feature Equities are approaching their first fundamental test since the post-election surge. Fourth quarter earnings season will soon begin in earnest, with the strong U.S. dollar threatening to temper forward guidance, based on its tight inverse correlation with future net earnings revisions (Chart 1). The post-election stock market valuation expansion has been sentiment-driven: our Equity Sentiment Composite is at a bullish extreme, powering the advance in multiples. That echoes the massive growth forecast upgrade on the back of expectations of a more business friendly, reflationary fiscal policy. The NFIB survey of small business optimism has soared to levels typically reserved for a V-shaped rebound exiting recession (Chart 1). Soaring growth expectations mean that a volatile, equity validation phase is inevitable. The timing is difficult to pinpoint, however, because momentum can be a powerful and seductive force. In other words, performance anxiety and fear of missing out are overwhelming cyclical warning flags. For instance, the total market capitalization (MC) of the U.S. stock market is more than 120% of (nominal) GDP, more than double the 2008 trough (Chart 2). MC as a share of GDP has only been higher during the TMT bubble in the late-1990s. Since the 2008 low, central bank balance sheet expansion and the accrual of earnings to the corporate sector rather than to laborers have powered this remarkable surge. Low interest rates have also incented investors to bid up MC using leverage. Margin debt is now at previous peaks relative to GDP (Chart 2). It is possible that a repeat of TMT period could be unfolding, but betting on a multi-standard deviation event is high risk and low reward, especially given already elevated margin debt, and more recently, rising debt-servicing costs. MC to GDP has averaged 75% over the last forty five years. Even if nominal GDP boomed at 8% per annum for the next five years, market cap would still be over 80% of GDP, or well above the average. It may be too optimistic to expect market cap to stay above average over the next five years even if economic growth booms, because strong growth would imply a shift from interest rate normalization to restrictive settings, and wages would take an ever increasing share of corporate profits, removing two key valuation supports. What is clear is that subsequent long-term returns from current levels of MC/GDP have been poor. Chart 3 inverts and advances MC/GDP by 10-years, and plots that with 10-year rolling equity returns: long-term return potential looks paltry. Admittedly, this valuation gauge does little to forecast short-term market moves, but over the next 3-6 months, our concern is that economic euphoria will prove to have overshot reality. Chart 1Too Many Bulls? Too Many Bulls? Too Many Bulls? Chart 2Investors Already Fully Committed Investors Already Fully Committed Investors Already Fully Committed Chart 3Paltry Long-Term Returns Ahead Paltry Long-Term Returns Ahead Paltry Long-Term Returns Ahead The steady decline in total bank loan growth to nil and slide in federal income tax receipts to zero growth is worrying. The latter is an excellent confirming indicator for overall employment and economic growth (Chart 2, bottom panel). The current message does not confirm the budding economic boom currently discounted by the stock market. Consequently, we recommend a capital preservation mindset and a focus on controlling risk, as opposed to chasing short-term momentum driven returns. Against this backdrop, this week we highlight an undervalued consumer-dependent area and revisit the red-hot financials sector. Where To Next For Capital Markets? Anything financials-related surged after the election. A short covering rally morphed into optimism that the sector's regulatory burden will be loosened, ultimately allowing companies to earn a higher return on equity, thereby warranting increased valuations. In response, we upgraded our overall financial sector view in November, boosting our exposure to the previously lagging asset management & custody bank (AMCB) group to overweight and the capital markets group to neutral. The surge in equities relative to bonds has provided a catalyst for these groups to outperform (Chart 4), and that has the potential to become a longer-term asset preference shift amidst Fed tightening. That dynamic bodes well for a continued re-rating of the AMCB index. Does the same hold true for the higher beta capital markets group? The jury is still out. Capital markets stocks have historically gotten off to a slow start during Fed tightening cycles. Table 2 shows the average relative 6-, 12- and 24-month returns once the Fed begins hiking interest rates. Capital market stocks have underperformed during the first six months, regaining that in the subsequent 6 months, before finally accelerating meaningfully in year two. Using this as a guide (and the most recent hike as the true start to a Fed tightening cycle) would suggest that the initial relative performance surge is vulnerable to a pullback in the first half of this year. Meanwhile, the bull case for capital markets includes more than just higher rates and a steeper yield curve. The share price jump suggests that industry profit outperformance looms (Chart 5). A similar relative performance surge in 2013 was accompanied by a massive earnings surge. Chart 4Good News For Capital Markets... Good News For Capital Markets... Good News For Capital Markets... Chart 5... But Already Discounted? ... But Already Discounted? ... But Already Discounted? Table 2Capital Markets & Fed Tightening Cycles Performance Anxiety Performance Anxiety Earnings outperformance requires a sustained increase in capital formation, but we are reluctant to extrapolate the recent improvement in market and economic sentiment to an actual increase in demand for capital just yet. Typically, a rise in the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio foretells of an increase in animal spirits. A rise in the S/B ratio signals that deflationary risks are receding, and points to a re-acceleration in new stock issuance (Chart 4), a plus for fee generation. But companies have already been taking advantage of cheap financing to issue equity and debt to fund M&A and buybacks, reflecting the lack of organic growth opportunities in recent years. Incremental equity raises will require a validation of growth-sponsored capital needs, rather than more financial engineering. As a share of GDP, M&A has already reached levels that coincided with previous peaks in speculative activity (Chart 6). At best, a period like 1999 could occur, when M&A stayed at a high level for two years, helping profits and share prices to outperform. But that period was a massive speculative asset bubble, and positioning for a replay is fraught with risk. Chart 6Already Past The Peak? Already Past The Peak? Already Past The Peak? Chart 7Limited New Capital Formation Limited New Capital Formation Limited New Capital Formation We are more concerned that capital formation might not live up to what is quickly becoming embedded in share prices. Chart 7 shows that the yield curve already appears to be peaking, suggesting that economic expectations have hit a ceiling. Moreover, bank loan growth has dropped to nil over the past three months, led by the commercial & industrial credit category (Chart 7). The sharp decline in C&I loan demand implies that business funding requirements are diminishing. This is corroborated by the plunge in corporate bond issuance, which has occurred within the context of narrowing corporate bond spreads and increase in risk appetites, ideal conditions for companies to issue debt (Chart 7). All of this is consistent with the message from the corporate sector financing gap, which is signaling that companies are no longer spending in excess of their cash flow (Chart 7). The corporate sector is not in a financial position to embark on a major expansion phase. Our Corporate Health Monitor remains in deteriorating health territory, underscoring limited balance sheet capacity for growth. That is consistent with a rising corporate bond default rate and more subdued M&A activity (Chart 8). Directionally, M&A activity has a critical influence on swings in capital markets return on equity, given generous profit margins for this vertical (Chart 8). Chart 8Hard To Envision A Continued M&A Boom Hard To Envision A Continued M&A Boom Hard To Envision A Continued M&A Boom Chart 9Firms Are Not Positioning For Growth Firms Are Not Positioning For Growth Firms Are Not Positioning For Growth Even the capital markets industry itself is not yet putting its money to work in anticipation of an upturn in business activity. Staff level changes are pro-cyclical. Companies hire to meet increase demand on their resources and are quick to slash when revenue opportunities diminish. As such, capital markets employment provides a good confirming indicator for earnings momentum. Chart 9 shows that capital markets hiring has dried up, similar to loan demand. The implication is that the expected upturn in relative forward earnings momentum may not materialize in the short run. Perhaps lags will eventually close these gaps, but with valuations now more dear than at any time since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 9), prudence warrants patience before adopting a more optimistic positioning. Bottom Line: The S&P AMCB index continues to represent a more attractive risk-adjusted exposure to the improvement in market and economic sentiment than the capital markets group, because a meaningful increase in capital formation is still not assured. Stay overweight the former, and neutral on the latter. Time To Nibble On Packaged Foods Packaged foods stocks have been through the grinder in the last few months. We have been underweight this group, because it had not corrected alongside the rest of the consumer products complex (Chart 10), while leading revenue metrics had softened and employment costs had increased. However, the sharp share price decline means that difficult conditions are now being discounted. Chart 11 shows that the relative forward P/E ratio is well under the long-term average. Sales growth expectations have cratered, reflecting the negative impact of food price deflation and the strong U.S. dollar on this export-dependent industry. Chart 10Food Stocks Have Spoiled Food Stocks Have Spoiled Food Stocks Have Spoiled Chart 11Expectations Have Undershot Expectations Have Undershot Expectations Have Undershot We doubt conditions will worsen, especially relative to depressed expectations. In fact, previous drags are stabilizing, on the margin. For instance, the consumer price index for food products has troughed on a growth rate basis, suggesting that the de-rating in sales expectations has run its course (Chart 11). On the downside, capacity utilization rates are still low as a consequence of the previous retrenchment in food spending and increase in capacity. Indeed, the food production footprint has expanded over the last several years, which has been a contributing factor to the rise in labor costs and constraints on profitability. The good news is that industry wage inflation has crested and utilization rates appear to have troughed. Importantly, the U.S. dollar is not undermining growth prospects as much as dire forecasts suggest. Real exports of food and beverage products have surged in recent months (Chart 12). On the flipside, imports have declined, suggesting less fierce foreign competition. Chart 12The Strong Dollar Is Not A Death Knell... The Strong Dollar Is Not A Death Knell... The Strong Dollar Is Not A Death Knell... Chart 13... Especially If It Keeps Costs Down ... Especially If It Keeps Costs Down ... Especially If It Keeps Costs Down Total food demand growth has improved, as measured by the combination of export growth and real domestic food spending (Chart 12). Even the food shipments-to-inventories ratio has edged back into positive territory, a plus for future selling price increases. In addition, a strong U.S. dollar should continue to keep a lid on raw food prices (Chart 13). Low input commodity costs have helped propel our profit margin proxy to new cyclical highs, heralding ongoing margin expansion. The latter demonstrates impressive operating discipline amidst a tough sales backdrop. More recently, sales growth at food and beverage stores has reaccelerated (Chart 13), suggesting that factories will get busier, providing additional support to profit margins and reversing sagging return on equity. If ROE stabilizes, then the valuation compression will end. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P packaged food index to neutral, locking in a 3% profit since our underweight call in September 2015. A further upgrade is possible if utilization rates begin to improve, heralding an increase in pricing power. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).