Protectionism/Competitive devaluation

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Inflation And Interest Rates Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016

Highlights The FOMC statement was somewhat more hawkish than expected. The Fed is on course to raise rates two to three times next year. Trump's policy views are squarely bearish for bonds, but more mixed for stocks. Investors are focusing too much on the positive aspects of Trump's agenda, while ignoring the glaringly negative ones. The 35-year bond bull market is over. Deep-seated political and economic forces will conspire to lift inflation over the coming years. For now, rising wages and prices are welcome news given that inflation remains below target in most economies. However, with productivity and labor force growth still weak around the world - and likely to stay that way - reflation will eventually morph into stagflation. Feature A Fork In The Road Charlie Wilson, the former CEO of General Motors, once famously declared that "what is good for GM is good for the country." There is little doubt that policies that boost economic growth can benefit both Wall Street and Main Street alike. On occasion, however, what is good for one may not be good for the other. Consider Donald Trump's campaign promise to curb illegal immigration and crack down on firms that move production abroad. Reduced immigration means fewer potential customers, and hence weaker sales growth. Fewer immigrant workers and less outsourcing also means higher wages for native-born workers. Bad news for Wall Street, but arguably good news for Main Street. Chart 1Diminished Labor Market Slack Boosting Wages The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street is critical for thinking about how various policies affect bonds and stocks. Bond prices tend to be more influenced by what happens to the broader economy (the key concern for Main Street), whereas equity prices tend to be more influenced by what happens to corporate earnings (the key concern for Wall Street). Corporate earnings have recovered much more briskly over the past eight years than the overall economy. Thus, it is no surprise that stock prices have surged while bond yields have tumbled. Things may be changing, however. A tighter U.S. labor market is pushing up wages, and this is starting to weigh on corporate profit margins (Chart 1). Meanwhile, bond yields are finally rebounding after hitting record low levels earlier this year. A Somewhat Hawkish Hike This week's FOMC statement reinforced the upward trajectory in yields. Both the median and modal "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections shifted from two to three hikes next year. While Chair Yellen mentioned that a few participants "did incorporate some assumption about the change in fiscal policy," we suspect that many did not, reflecting the lack of clarity about the timing, composition, and magnitude of any fiscal package. As these details are fleshed out, it is probable that both growth and inflation assumptions will be revised up, helping to keep the Fed's tightening bias in place. The key question is whether U.S. growth will be strong enough next year to allow the Fed to keep raising rates. Our view is that it will. As we argued in October in "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen,"1 a recovery in business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, a pick-up in spending at the state and local government level, and continued solid consumption growth driven by rising real wages will all support demand in 2017. Indeed, it is likely that the Fed will find itself a bit behind the curve, allowing inflation to drift higher. The Structural Case For Higher Inflation The cyclical acceleration in U.S. and global inflation that we will see over the next few years will be buttressed by structural trends. As we first spelled out in this year's Q3 Strategy Outlook entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market,"2 a number of political and economic forces will conspire to lift inflation and nominal bond yields over time. Let us start with the politics. Here, three inflationary forces stand out: The retreat from globalization; The rejection of fiscal austerity; The continued will and growing ability of central banks to push up inflation. Globalization Under Attack Globalization is an inherently deflationary force. In a globalized world, if a country experiences an idiosyncratic shock which raises domestic demand, this can be met with more imports rather than higher prices. In addition, the entry of millions of workers from once labor-rich, but capital-poor economies such as China, has depressed the wages of less-skilled workers in developed economies.3 Poorer workers tend to spend a greater share of their incomes than richer workers (Chart 2). To the extent that globalization has exacerbated income inequality, it has also reduced aggregate demand. It is too early to know to what extent Donald Trump will try to roll back globalization. So far, his cabinet appointments - perhaps with the exception of immigration hawk Jeff Sessions - are little different from what a run-of-the-mill Republican like Jeb Bush would have made. Yet, as we noted last week, it will be difficult for Trump to backtrack from his protectionist views because his white working-class base will abandon him if he does.4 As Chart 3 shows, the share of Republican voters who support free trade has plummeted from over half to only one-third. For better or for worse, the Republican Party has become a populist party. Davos Man beware. Chart 2The Rich Save, The Poor Not So Much Chart 3Republican Voters Are Rejecting Free Trade In any case, even if populist pressures do not cause global trade to collapse over the coming years, the period of "hyperglobalization," as Arvind Subramanian has called it, is over. As we discussed three weeks ago,5 many of the things that facilitated globalization over the past 30 years were one-off developments: China cannot join the WTO more than once; tariffs in most developed countries cannot fall much more because they are already close to zero; there is nothing on the horizon that will match the breakthrough productivity gains in global shipping that stemmed from containerization; the global supply chain is already highly efficient, etc. Thus, at the margin, globalization will be less of a deflationary force than it once was. Back To Bread And Circuses After a brief burst of fiscal stimulus following the financial crisis, governments moved quickly to tighten their belts. Now, however, the pendulum is starting to swing back towards easier fiscal policy, as nervous politicians look for ways to thwart the populist backlash (Chart 4). The U.K. is a good example of this emerging trend. Prior to the Brexit vote, the Conservative government had planned to tighten fiscal policy by a further 3.3% of GDP over the remainder of this decade. This goal has been thrown out the window, with Theresa May now even hinting about the prospect of some fiscal stimulus. Elsewhere in Europe, governments continue to flout their fiscal targets. Not only has the European Commission turned a blind eye to this development, but a recent report by the Commission actually suggested that a "desirable fiscal orientation" would entail larger budget deficits next year than what member states are currently targeting (Chart 5). Chart 4The End Of Austerity Chart 5The European Commission Recommends Greater Fiscal Expansion In Japan, Prime Minister Abe has scrapped plans to raise the sales tax next year. The supplementary budget announced in August will boost annual spending by 0.5% of GDP over the next three years. Our geopolitical team thinks that further spending measures will be introduced, especially on defense. For his part, Donald Trump has pledged massive fiscal stimulus consisting of increased infrastructure and defense expenditures, along with a whopping $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years even before accounting for additional interest costs. Investors shouldn't rejoice too much, however. Effective tax rates for S&P 500 companies are already well below statutory levels on account of the numerous loopholes in the tax code (Chart 6). Small businesses rather than large corporations will disproportionately benefit from Trump's tax measures. Chart 6The U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low Moreover, it is doubtful that the maximum fiscal thrust from Trump's policies will be reached before 2018. By that time, the economy is likely to have reached full employment. As such, much of the stimulus is likely to show up in the form of higher wages rather than increased real corporate sales. More Monetary Ammo The global financial crisis set off the biggest deflation scare the world has seen since the Great Depression. Eight years later, central banks are still struggling to raise inflation. The conventional wisdom is that central banks are "out of bullets." This view, however, is much too pessimistic. Even if one excludes the use of such radical measures as helicopter money, it is still the case that traditional monetary policy becomes more effective as spare capacity is reduced. Consider the case of forward guidance. If an economy has a large output gap, a central bank's promise to keep interest rates at zero, even after full employment has been reached, may hold little sway. After all, many things can happen between now and then: A change of central bank leadership, another adverse economic shock, etc. In contrast, if the output gap is already quite small, as is the case in the U.S. today, a promise to let the economy run hot is more likely to be taken seriously. Chart 7 shows that the level of the U.S. core PCE deflator, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, is nearly 4% lower than it would have been if inflation had remained at its 2% target since 2008. Given that the Fed has a symmetric target - meaning that inflation overshoots should be just as common as undershoots - aiming for an inflation rate above 2% over the next few years makes some sense. If inflation does move up to the 2.5%-to-3% range, the Fed might be reluctant to bring it back down since this would require slower growth and higher unemployment. In fact, a case could be made that the Fed and other central banks should simply raise their inflation targets. Both private and public debt levels are still quite elevated all over the world (Chart 8). Higher inflation would be one way to reduce the real value of those liabilities. Chart 7Inflation Has Undershot the Fed's Target Chart 8Elevated Debt Levels The difficulty in pushing nominal short-term rates much below zero is another reason to aim for a higher inflation rate. Back in 1999 when the FOMC first broached the idea of introducing a 2% inflation target, the Fed's simulations suggested that the zero lower bound would only be reached once every 20 years, and even on these rare occurrences, interest rates would be pinned to zero for only four quarters (Table 1). In reality, the U.S. economy has spent more than half of the time since then either at the zero bound or close to it. While we do not expect any central bank to raise their inflation targets anytime soon, long-term investors should nevertheless prepare for this possibility. Table 1The Fed Underestimated The Probability Of Rates Being Stuck At Zero Slow Potential Growth: Deflationary At First, Inflationary Later On The narrowing of output gaps around the world has given central banks more traction over monetary policy. However, there has been a dark side to this development - and one that also leans in the direction of higher inflation. As Chart 9 shows, spare capacity has declined in every major economy not because demand has been strong, but because supply has been weak. Chart 9AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 9BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps The decline in potential GDP growth reflects both slower productivity and labor force growth. As we have discussed in past reports, while cyclical factors have weighed on potential growth, structural factors also loom large.6 The former include falling birth rates, flat-lining labor participation, plateauing educational attainment, and a shift in technological innovation away from business productivity and towards consumer-centric applications such as social media. Chart 10A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Critically, slower potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset but becomes inflationary later on. Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also reduces consumption, as households react to the prospect of slower real wage gains. Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation (Chart 10). One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a period when productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Likewise, a slowdown in labor force growth tends to morph from being deflationary to inflationary over time. When labor force growth slows, two things happen. First, investment demand drops. Why build new factories, office towers, and shopping malls if the number of workers and potential consumers is set to grow more slowly? Second, savings rise, as spending on children declines and a rising share of the workforce moves into its peak saving years (ages 35-to-50). The result is a large excess of savings over investment, which generates downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. As time goes by, the deflationary impact of slower labor force growth tends to recede (Chart 11). Workers who once brought home paychecks start to retire en masse and begin drawing down their accumulated wealth. Since there are few young workers available to take their place, labor shortages emerge. At the same time, health care spending and pension expenditures rise as a larger fraction of the population enters its golden years. The result is less aggregate savings and higher interest rates. Chart 11An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates Japan provides a good example of how this transition might occur. Chart 12 shows that the household savings rate has fallen from over 14% in the early 1990s to only 2% today. Meanwhile, the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 25-year high. Amazingly, the tightening in the labor market has occurred despite anemic GDP growth and a huge surge in female employment. Prime-age female labor participation has already risen above U.S. levels (Chart 13). As participation rates stabilize, labor force growth in Japan will decline from a cyclical high of around 0.8% at present to -0.2%. That may be enough to precipitate a sharp labor shortage, leading to higher wages and an end to deflation. Chart 12Japan: Declining Household Savings ##br## Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Chart 13Japan: Female Labor Force ##br## Participation Now Exceeds The U.S. What will the Bank of Japan do when this fateful day arrives? The answer is probably nothing. The BoJ would welcome a virtuous circle in which rising inflation pushes down real rates, leading to a weaker yen, a stronger stock market, and even higher inflation expectations. Such a virtuous circle almost emerged in 2012 had the Japanese government not short-circuited it by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP. It won't make the same mistake again. Investment Conclusions Global assets have swung wildly in the weeks following the U.S. presidential election. The selloff in bonds and the rally in the dollar make perfect sense to us - indeed, we predicted as much in our September report entitled "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies."7 In contrast, the surge in U.S. equities seems overdone. Yes, certain elements of Trump's political agenda such as deregulation and lower corporate tax rates are good news for stocks. But other aspects such as trade protectionism and tighter immigration controls are not. Others still, such as increased government spending, are good in theory but carry sizeable side-effects, the chief of which is that the stimulus may arrive at a time when the economy no longer needs it. Some commentators have argued that the good aspects of Trump's agenda will be implemented before the bad ones, giving investors a reason to focus on the positive. We are not so sure. If Trump gives the Republican establishment everything it wants on taxes and regulations, he will lose all his remaining leverage over trade and immigration. Rather than waiting to be stabbed in the back by Paul Ryan, strategically, Trump is likely to insist that Congress implement his populist platform before he hands it the keys to the economy. Even if one ignores the political intrigue, it is still the case that global stocks have tended to suffer following major spikes in bond yields such as the one we have just experienced (Table 2). We suspect that this time will not be any different. As such, investors would be wise to adopt a more defensive tactical posture over the next few months. Table 2Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Chart 14Global Growth Is Accelerating Things look better over a one-to-two year cyclical horizon. Outside of the U.S., much of the global economy continues to suffer from excess spare capacity. Recent data suggesting that global growth is accelerating is welcome news in that regard (Chart 14). Not only will stronger growth boost corporate earnings, but with the ECB, BoJ, and many other central banks firmly on hold, any increase in inflation expectations will translate into lower real rates, providing an additional fillip to spending. We continue to prefer European and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts, on a currency-hedged basis. Emerging markets are a tougher call. The real trade-weighted dollar probably has another 5% or so of upside from current levels. Historically, a stronger greenback has been bad news for EM equities. On a more positive note, faster global growth should give some support to commodity prices. BCA's commodity strategists remain quite bullish on crude and natural gas, a view that has been further reinforced by both Saudi Arabia and Russia's announcements to restrict oil supply beginning in January. Still, on balance, we recommend a slightly underweight position in EM equities. Looking beyond the next two years, the outlook for global risk assets is likely to darken again. We are skeptical that Trump's much lauded supply-side policies will boost productivity to any great degree. Against a backdrop of rising budget deficits and brewing populist sentiment around the world, reflation may begin to give way to stagflation. In such an environment, bond yields could rise substantially from current levels, taking stocks down with them. Enjoy it while it lasts. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "Trade Adjustment: Worker-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2014). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 9, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Slower Potential Growth: Causes And Consequences," dated May 29, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Investors are understating the risks that the Trump administration will enact protectionist trade policies. Contrary to popular belief, the economic costs to the U.S. of a protracted "trade war" would be low. The geopolitical impact, however, would be much more sizeable, as would the impact on S&P 500 profits. The near-term risks to global equities are on the downside, although firmer growth in developed economies should provide support to stocks over a 12-month horizon. Global bond yields will be higher this time next year, as will the dollar. The yen is especially vulnerable. We are closing our long Spanish/short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of 6.2%. Feature They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies. - Donald Trump in an interview with Oprah Winfrey discussing trade with Japan, 1988 Making Tariffs Great Again Donald Trump has flip-flopped on many issues. On trade, however, he has been perfectly consistent. As the quote above demonstrates, Trump has been advocating mercantilist policies ever since he entered the public spotlight in the 1980s. Even in the unlikely event that he wanted to pivot on this issue, he would be hard-pressed to do so. The Republican establishment and most Democrats will hate him no matter what he does. If Trump backpedals from his hardline stance on trade and immigration, he will lose a large chunk of his white, working-class base (Chart 1). One might argue that Trump would have no choice but to adopt a more conciliatory tone if the imposition of protectionist trade policies were to push the U.S. into a recession. However, contrary to widespread opinion, it is far from obvious that this would happen. While rising protectionism would have a major negative effect on many other economies, the impact on the U.S. would be modest, even if other countries were to match higher U.S. tariffs with retaliatory measures. Keep in mind that the U.S. is a relatively closed economy, with exports totaling only 12% of GDP. Exports to China and Mexico amount to 0.9% and 1.4% of GDP, respectively. And much of these exports are intermediate goods that are processed and reshipped back to the U.S. or some other third market. It would not make sense for China or Mexico to put up import barriers on these intermediate goods because this would just reduce domestic employment, without giving domestic firms much of a leg up. One should also remember that an appreciation of the dollar reduces U.S. export competitiveness in much the same way as higher tariffs placed by foreign governments on U.S.-made goods. The real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 20% since mid-2014 (Chart 2). While this obviously has been unpleasant for U.S. exporters, it has not pushed the economy into recession. Neither will retaliatory foreign tariffs. Chart 1Trump's Supporters Are Not ##br##Free Trade Enthusiasts Chart 2The Dollar Has Been ##br##Appreciating Since Mid-2014 Why The Consensus On Trade Is Misleading The view expressed above is far outside the consensus and clashes strongly with the large number of studies arguing that the implementation of Trump's trade agenda would have grave consequences for the U.S. economy. Let me first enumerate the ways these studies fall short on strictly economic grounds, and then discuss why they may still ring true if one takes a broader perspective. As far as the pure economics are concerned, these studies all suffer from some combination of the following deficiencies: They assume that foreign producers can fully or almost fully pass on the cost of U.S. tariffs to their customers. In reality, the evidence suggests that foreign producers will absorb about half of the increase in tariffs through lower profit margins. In other words, the imposition of a 20% tariff would only raise U.S. import prices by around 10%. Granted, retaliatory tariffs would squeeze the profit margins of U.S. exporters. However, this effect would be mitigated by the fact that the U.S. runs large bilateral trade deficits with China and Mexico (Chart 3), as well as the fact that foreign producers have less pricing power in the relatively large U.S. market than American producers have abroad. On net, this implies that higher trade barriers could actually make the U.S. better off by shifting the terms of trade in its favor. Chart 3The U.S. Runs Large Bilateral Trade Deficits With China And Mexico These studies treat tariffs like regular old taxes. To the extent that tariffs are taxes whose burden is partly borne by domestic consumers, their imposition has a dampening effect on activity. However, to model the impact of higher tariffs simply as a tightening of fiscal policy implicitly assumes that any tariff revenue will be used to pay down debt, rather than being used to finance tax cuts and spending increases. Given that Trump is touting a program of fiscal stimulus, that is not a sensible assumption. Moreover, unlike, say, a sales tax hike, higher tariffs divert demand towards domestically-produced goods. This tends to boost employment. These studies overstate the adverse effect of tariffs on domestic investment. More than half of global trade consists of capital equipment and intermediate goods (Chart 4). To the extent that higher tariffs raise the cost of production, this can lower investment. Moreover, trade barriers tend to increase economic inefficiencies. This can lead to slower productivity growth, causing firms to reduce capital spending. In practice, however, neither effect is particularly significant. As we discussed two weeks ago, the negative impact of trade barriers on productivity growth is generally overstated, especially for large economies like the United States.1 Chart 5 shows that productivity growth was actually faster in the three decades following the Second World War than in the hyper-globalization era that began in the early 1980s. Chart 4Intermediate And Capital Goods ##br##Make Up Over Half Of Global Trade Chart 5Rising Trade Has Not ##br##Boosted Productivity Growth While the price of capital goods does influence investment spending, for the most part, firms tend to base their investment decisions on the expected demand for their products. Since the U.S. runs a trade deficit, an equal percentage-point decline in both exports and imports would increase final demand through the familiar Y=C+I+G+X-M identity. This should lead to higher investment. Moreover, even if higher trade barriers leave final demand unaffected, there are reasons to think that investment would still rise. Think about a closed economy where most households decide all of a sudden that they prefer strawberry ice cream over vanilla ice cream. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that shifting production from vanilla to strawberry ice cream is very difficult and requires a lot of new investment. What do you expect would happen to overall investment in this economy? The answer is that it would likely rise, as companies scramble to build out new strawberry ice cream-making capacity. Now extend the analogy to trade. If the U.S. slaps tariffs on manufacturing imports, this will lead to a wave of new domestic investment in industries that benefit from tariff protection. This is bad news for companies that must incur the cost of relocating production back onshore, but it is good news for American workers who can now find gainful employment. The Bigger Picture Our guess is that in purely economic terms, the U.S. would not suffer much if the Trump administration were to forge ahead with its protectionist trade agenda, and could actually benefit if America's trading partners felt restrained in how they could retaliate. Yet, focusing only on the economics misses the bigger picture. Trade agreements are also about politics - they help form the geopolitical glue that holds the global community together. As we noted two weeks ago, the real reason the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was so disastrous was not because it contributed to the Great Depression, but because it led to a breakdown of international relations among democratic governments at a time when fascism was on the rise.2 Donald Trump's threat to pull out of trade deals and unilaterally impose tariffs on countries that he feels are engaging in unfair trade practices is likely to accelerate the shift to a multipolar geopolitical order where competing countries strive to carve out their own spheres of influence. As Chart 6 shows, such geopolitical orders have often contributed to the breakdown of globalization, and at times, have even led to military conflict. Chart 6AIncreasing Multipolarity And De-Globalization Tend To Go Hand-In-Hand Chart 6BIncreasing Multipolarity And De-Globalization Tend To Go Hand-In-Hand The fact that rising protectionism could benefit the U.S. at the expense of other countries is bound to stoke anger abroad. China, the focus of much of Trump's rhetoric, is especially vulnerable. Trump has threatened to declare the country a "currency manipulator," even though it meets only one of the three criteria for such a designation as set out by the Treasury Department.3 Other countries should not breathe a sigh of relief, however. There is a certain logic about protectionism that makes it difficult to hike tariffs on just one or two countries. For example, if the U.S. raises tariffs on China, some of the existing demand for Chinese goods will be diverted to countries such as Korea or Vietnam, rather than back to the U.S. This creates an incentive to raise tariffs on those countries as well. It is easy to see how the whole global trading system can break down under such circumstances. Investment Conclusions Donald Trump's threat of across-the-border tariffs of 35% on Mexican goods and 45% on Chinese goods will likely turn out to be a negotiating ploy. That said, some increase in trade barriers seems inevitable. These need not even be explicit barriers. Trump's success in browbeating Carrier into keeping its plant open in Indiana is an example of things to come. Corporate America does a lot of business with the government, and the subtle threat of cancelled government contracts will make any CEO take notice. Good news for Main Street perhaps, but definitely bad news for Wall Street. For now, investors are focusing on the positive elements of Trump's agenda. That may change soon. Yes, increased infrastructure spending and corporate tax cuts are both bullish for stocks. However, effective U.S. corporate tax rates are already quite low thanks to numerous loopholes. Thus, any cuts to statutory rates may not boost S&P 500 profits by as much as investors are hoping (Chart 7). And while more infrastructure investment is welcome, there simply are not enough "shovel ready" projects around. Chart 7U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low Moreover, Trump's plan to finance infrastructure spending through private-public partnerships greatly narrows the universe of possible projects. The U.S. Society Of Civil Engineers estimates that most of the "infrastructure gap" consists of deferred maintenance (i.e., potholes to fix, bridges to repair).4 It is difficult to get investors interested in such work, which is why it is typically financed directly through government budgets. Meanwhile, financial conditions have tightened via a stronger dollar and higher bond yields (Chart 8). Historically, such a tightening has been bearish for stocks (Table 1). We are tactically cautious on a three-month horizon, and are positioned for this by being short the NASDAQ 100 futures. Our guess is that global equities will correct by about 5%-to-10% from current levels, setting the stage for positive returns down the road. U.S. high-yield spreads, which are near post-crisis lows, are also likely to widen (Chart 9). Chart 8U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased Chart 9U.S. High-Yield Spreads Likely To Widen Table 1Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike A correction in risk assets could temporarily knock down Treasury yields. Nevertheless, the long-term path for global bond yields is to the upside. The three key features of Trump's platform - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and trade protectionism - are all inflationary. Only JGB yields are likely to stay put for the foreseeable future due to the BOJ's well-timed decision to peg the 10-year yield at zero. As bond yields elsewhere rise, the yen will come under further downward pressure. We see USD/JPY reaching 125 in 12 months' time. Chart 10Global Growth Is Accelerating A weaker yen should boost Japanese stocks, at least in local-currency terms. European equities will also benefit from a somewhat cheaper euro and firming global growth (Chart 10). Steeper yield curves are helping to boost European bank shares, despite ongoing concerns about the health of the Italian financial sector. As we have discussed in the past, systemic risks around the Italian banks are overstated.5 With that in mind, we are closing our long Spanish/short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of 6.2%. The recent rally in commodity markets and the uptick in global activity indicators are welcome developments for emerging markets. Still, it will be hard for EM equities to muster a sustainable rally as long as the dollar remains in an uptrend and protectionist sentiment is on the rise. For now, a modest underweight in EM stocks is warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1,2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The U.S. Treasury is allowed to define a country as a currency manipulator if: i) it runs a large trade surplus with the U.S.; ii) it has an excessively large current account surplus with the rest of the world; and iii) it is engaging in direct foreign exchange intervention in order to weaken its currency. While the first criterion arguably holds, the other two do not, given that China's overall current account surplus currently stands at 2.4% of GDP and recent currency intervention has been designed to prevent the yuan from depreciating more than it would have otherwise. 4 Please see "Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America's Economic Future," American Society of Civil Engineers (2016). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Italian Bank Job," dated July 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Investors continue to overstate the constraints the Trump administration faces; Tax reform will happen, likely much sooner than the markets appreciate; Infrastructure spending will be modest, but will also face no constraints; Trump's de-globalization agenda - on both immigration and trade - faces few, if any, constraints; Book gains on long S&P 500 / short gold, long Japanese equities, long USD/JPY, and close long European versus global equities for a small loss. Maintain a long SMEs / short MNCs strategic outlook as a play on de-globalization. Feature "It used to be cars were made in Flint, and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint." - President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Flint, Michigan, September 14, 2016 Regular readers of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy know that our methodology emphasizes policymakers' constraints over their preferences. We abide by the simple maxim that preferences are optional and subject to constraints, while constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. President-elect Donald J. Trump is not unique. In the long term, his preferences will be cajoled and imprisoned by his constraints. However, investors may be overstating the impact of constraints in the short term. This is because Trump is a transformational - rather than merely transactional - leader whose election is a product of the yearning for significant change by the U.S. electorate.1 The key difference between the two leadership styles is that transformational leaders seek change by influencing and motivating their followers to break with convention. They make an appeal on normative and ideological grounds. Meanwhile, transactional leaders seek to maintain the status quo by satisfying their followers' basic needs. The latter use sticks and carrots, the former inspire. In the long term, even transformational leaders like Trump will be whipsawed by their material and constitutional constraints into the narrow tunnel of available options. But as we discuss in this Special Report, President-elect Trump will have a lot more room to maneuver than investors may think. That will be good for some assets, bad for others. Trump's Blue-Collar Base To understand the priorities of the Trump administration - as well his lack of political constraints - investors need to respect Trump's shock victory on November 8. Trump won the election because he was able to extend his "White Hype" strategy to the Midwest states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and came close to winning Minnesota) (Map 1).2 Map 1Electoral College Vote, Nov. 29, 2016 To extend the Republican voting base into these traditionally "blue" states, Trump appealed to white blue-collar workers, many of whom voted for President Obama in 2012. Though he squeaked by with narrow vote-margins, he was not expected to be competitive in these states at all: Hillary Clinton did not visit Wisconsin once during her campaign (Chart 1). Trade was a chief concern of these disenchanted "Rust Belt" voters. Exit polls show that they agreed with Trump's message that globalization and neoliberal trade policies have sapped the U.S. of jobs, wages, and job security (Chart 2). Chart 1Hillary Failed To##br## Ride Obama's Coattails Chart 2Trump's Winning Constituency##br## Angry About Trade Infrastructure, and government spending more broadly, were also major concerns - Trump's election was effectively an "anti-austerity" vote. Throughout the campaign Trump showed himself to be indifferent to budget deficits and debt, at least relative to the GOP leadership of the past six years. Instead he shattered GOP orthodoxy by promising to avoid any cuts to entitlement spending and contravened the party's fiscal hawks by promising to spend $1 trillion (later $550 billion) on infrastructure, e.g. the "bad drinking water" problem referred to in the quote at the start of this report. By contrast, Trump paid less attention to tax reform. Yes, he promised to slash taxes, even after reducing the scope of his extravagant September 2015 tax cut proposal. But no, this was not the focus of his campaign and did not get him elected. Instead, it is an area of common ground between himself and the GOP, and it has been the party's main pursuit in recent years. No one knows what Trump is going to do when he takes office. His statements are famously all over the place and he often positions himself at the opposite sides of a policy issue at the same time, prompting us to label him America's first "Quantum Politician."3 His cabinet is only beginning to take shape. Therefore, his main agenda and priorities - traditionally outlined in the upcoming Inaugural Address on January 20 - remain inchoate at best. Nevertheless, trade protections and better infrastructure were core demands of Trump's blue-collar electoral coalition and we expect him to follow through with actions, not least because he needs these states for upcoming elections in 2018 and 2020. Bottom Line: Trump's personal policy preferences are shrouded in mystery. However, investors should assume that he will take the preferences of the Midwest blue-collar voters seriously. They delivered him the presidency. Tax Reform The main reason for the market's exuberance since the election - aside from a "relief rally" given that the sky has not fallen4 - has been the prospect of substantial tax cuts. With Republicans holding all levels of government - and Democrats unable to filibuster tax reform in the Senate due to the "reconciliation procedure"5 - investors are rightly optimistic that the U.S. will finally see significant reforms. We review the plan, investigate its constraints, and assess the impact below. The Plan Trump is asking for much bigger tax cuts than the Republican Party's major alternative, House Speaker Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" plan.6 Trump would slash the corporate tax rate to 15% for all businesses, with flow-through businesses (80% of all U.S. businesses) eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under the individual income tax rate (as currently).7 The GOP, by contrast, would set the corporate rate at 20% and the flow-through business rate at 25%. Trump and the GOP agree that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.8 Where Trump and the GOP differ is on how to handle deductions, the flow-through businesses, child tax credits, and other issues - with Trump generally more inclined toward government largesse. Another element of tax reform is the proposed repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings. An estimated $2.6-$3 trillion is stashed "abroad" (often only in a legal sense), which enables companies to defer paying the corporate tax rate due upon repatriation. Trump is following in the footsteps of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in attempting to collect these taxes - with the Republicans also broadly on board.9 Overall, Trump's plan would cut taxes and tax revenues much more aggressively than the GOP plan. Trump would see $1.3 trillion more in personal tax cuts and $1.7 trillion more in corporate taxes than the GOP plan over the coming decade (Chart 3). The country's debt-GDP ratio would grow by 25%, well above the GOP's 10-12% increase (Chart 4). Chart 3Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Tax Cuts Chart 4Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Debt The Constraints We see no significant political or constitutional constraints facing the GOP and Trump. If we had to pick, we would assume that the ultimate deal will look a lot more like the GOP plan. The two sides will be able to hammer out a compromise for the following reasons: Given the reconciliation rules in the Senate, the Democrats cannot filibuster tax-cutting legislation. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations passed tax cuts in their first year in office - Reagan signed them into law in August, Bush in June. Trump, like Bush, has the advantage of GOP control of both houses of Congress. He and his party would have to fumble the ball very badly to fail on comprehensive tax reform in 2017. Republicans have been demanding tax reform since 2010 and have several "off-the-shelf" plans to draw from, including Ryan's plan. Staffers know the issues. Trump has also already reduced his original ambitions to meet them halfway. Since Trump's campaign did not focus on tax reform, he can afford to let the GOP take the lead on it - he will still get credit for the resulting deal and will expect GOP support on infrastructure, immigration, and trade in turn. The first constraint that does exist is complexity. Comprehensive tax reform has not occurred since 1986, under Reagan, because it is fiendishly tricky. This means the timing could be delayed - perhaps as late as the third quarter of 2017, despite the eagerness of both Congress and the White House for reform. The second constraint is one of priorities. Trump and the GOP have a busy agenda for the first half of 2017, with taxes, Obamacare, and Trump's infrastructure plan. Rumors suggest that Congress will use its first reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare. But since they do not know what will replace the current law yet, it would make more sense to reverse the order and do tax reform first. This will be easier, again, because tax reform has been a major issue for Republicans for a decade. Third is the problem of permanence. Assuming the Republicans use reconciliation to pass their tax reform, they will not be allowed to increase the federal budget deficit beyond the ten-year time frame of the budget resolution. They will have to include a "sunset" clause on the tax cuts, as occurred with the Bush tax cuts in 2001, leaving them vulnerable to expiration under the next administration.10 The Impact What will a sweeping tax reform plan mean? Headline U.S. corporate taxes are higher than every other country in the OECD, so the U.S. corporate sector will ostensibly gain competitiveness (Chart 5). This factor, combined with repatriation and threats of protectionism against outsourcing multi-national corporates (MNCs), should lift corporate investment in the U.S. Chart 5U.S. Companies Will Get Competitive Reducing loopholes would broaden the corporate tax base, the key value of the reform from the perspective of revenues and the country's economic structure. Multinational corporations already pay a lower effective tax rate than the official 35% corporate rate, so the impact will depend on their current effective rate as well as the new rate. Trump's plan would only increase effective taxes for firms in the utilities sector, while the GOP plan could increase effective taxes for firms in finance, electronics, transportation, and leasing. In both cases, companies in construction, retail, agriculture, refining, and non-durable manufacturing stand to benefit the most (Chart 6). Chart 6Tax Cuts Benefit Some Sectors More Than Others A key question is how flow-through businesses are treated: whether they get Trump's 15% or the GOP's 25%. In the latter case they would see a tax hike (from an average rate of 19%) and thereafter be punished relative to more capital-heavy "C" corporations. Trump is a "populist" insofar as his plan would support flow-through businesses. Bottom Line: The quickest and biggest impact of Trump's fiscal policies on GDP growth will come from his tax cuts. With the Republicans long preparing for tax reform, and fully controlling Congress, tax reform is all but a done deal - and probably by Q3 2017 at latest. The outstanding question is whether Trump's infrastructure spending will be included in tax reform and thus compound the positive fiscal impact in 2017, or be pushed off into 2018. Fiscal Spending Trump's proposed $550 billion in new infrastructure investment is as nebulous as many of his other promises. However, as outlined above, we believe that Trump's victory partly depended on this issue and investors should not ignore Trump's commitment to it. Constraints are overstated. The Plan Trump's first clear infrastructure proposal came from two of his special advisers, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro.11 They propose government tax credits for private entities who invest in infrastructure projects. They argue that $1 trillion in new infrastructure investment - the same number cited on Trump's campaign website as the country's estimated needs over the next decade - would require $167 billion in equity investment, which could then be leveraged. To raise these sums, they propose the government offer a tax credit equal to 82% of the equity amount. They contend that the plan would be deficit-neutral because payments for the government tax credit would be matched with tax revenues from the labor involved in construction and the corporate profits flowing from the projects, charged at Trump's 15% corporate rate. The other component of the Ross-Navarro plan consists in combining infrastructure financing with the tax repatriation plan - a common proposal in Washington. Companies that are repatriating their earnings at the lower 10% rate could thus invest in infrastructure projects and use the 82% tax credit on that investment to cover the cost of their repatriation taxes. If the Trump administration sticks with this proposal, it will require the GOP to include the infrastructure plan in the tax reform bill. Or, given the bipartisan support for both a new repatriation tax and building infrastructure, Trump could turn to the Democrats for a separate bill covering these two policies. However, the specifics of the Ross-Navarro plan can be chucked out the window at will. They were designed to win the election, not to bind the administration's hands. Already, Trump has reversed his stance on the possibility of a state-run infrastructure bank (one of Clinton's proposals) as a way of financing new projects. What matters is that Trump and his top advisors are enthralled by the idea of a populist or "big government"-style conservatism that takes advantage of historically low interest rates - the post-financial crisis "Keynesian" moment - to stimulate the economy and improve U.S. productivity in the long run.12 Trump's emphasis on this issue in his November 8 victory speech says it all. Thus Trump's infrastructure ambitions are likely to be prioritized and will certainly not be abandoned. Unless Trump drastically alters his handling of the issue on January 20 - which we consider highly unlikely - it should be considered a top priority. The Constraints What are the constraints? President Obama's stimulus plan passed in February 2009, immediately after taking office, but that was in the midst of a financial crisis. Now conditions are different. Infrastructure is popular, but the timing with the economic cycle is not perfect, and the fiscal hawks in the GOP will try to water down Trump's proposals. Our clients are particularly concerned that the Tea Party-linked Republicans in Congress will be a major political hurdle. We disagree. On the issue of funding, what is important for legislative passage is not whether the plan ends up being "deficit neutral" as promised, but whether it can be marketed as such. Key Republicans like Kevin Brady, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, have already admitted that some of the revenues from repatriated earnings will go toward infrastructure. Public-private partnerships will give Republicans a way of presenting the project as deficit-friendly. And it is true that interest rates are low for borrowers (at least for now), including state and local authorities - which account for the clear majority of infrastructure spending in the U.S. Political constraints are few. Public support for infrastructure is a no-brainer, opinion polls show that the public wants better infrastructure (Chart 7). It is also one of the least polarizing issues of all the issues in a recent Pew survey (Chart 8). Chart 7The 'Right' Kind Of ##br##Government Spending: Infrastructure Chart 8Infrastructure Is Not##br## A Partisan Issue Moreover, there is no reason to believe that modern Republican presidents are particularly fiscally austere - Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes were not (Chart 9). And Republican voters are not so fearful of big government when their party is at the helm as when they are in opposition (Chart 10). Election results show that voters consistently approve of about 70% of local transportation funding initiatives, which means they vote in favor of higher taxes to receive better infrastructure (Chart 11). Chart 9Fact: Republicans Run Bigger Budget Deficits Chart 10No Ruling Party Fears Big Government What about the Tea Party? It is true that fiscal conservatives in the GOP are skeptical of Trump's infrastructure ambitions. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus make up about 60 combined votes. However, Trump's combination of Eisenhower big-spending Republicanism and populism won the election and has therefore written austerity's obituary. Furthermore, voters identifying with the Tea Party voted for Trump in the Republican primaries, according to exit polls (Chart 12). Hesitancy to support Trump on ideological grounds even caused the former Chairman of the Tea Party Caucus, Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), to lose his primary election to a more Trump-friendly challenger. Given that all members of the House of Representatives must run for re-election in 2018 - with campaigning starting in merely 18 months - they will dare not oppose Trump for fear of being Huelskamped themselves. Chart 11The 'Right' Kind Of Tax Hike: Paying For Roads Chart 12Trump Won The Tea Party Vote The political winds against austerity were shifting even before Trump. In January 2015, the GOP-controlled Congress approved of "dynamic scoring," an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures - spending and/or tax cuts - on revenue and thus deficits.13 The GOP has also recently come close to readmitting "earmarks," legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011, but they have crept back in different guises (Chart 13). Republican members of Congress can hear the gravy train and are scrambling to ensure they get on board. They want to be able to ride the new wave of spending all the way back to re-election in their home districts. Chart 13Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending Finally, if Congress takes up an infrastructure-repatriation tax bill separately from the more partisan tax cuts, Trump may be able to offset any holdout fiscal hawks with support from Democrats. In late 2015, Democrats and Republicans voted together on the first highway funding bill in ten years, with large margins in both houses, easily overwhelming dissent from the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus. Vulnerable Democrats in the now "Trump Blue" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will be particularly interested in crossing the aisle on any infrastructure spending legislation. The Impact What will be the size and impact of Trump's infrastructure spending? Currently his transition team says he will oversee $550 billion in new investments, albeit offering no details or timeframe. This would be 72% of Obama's 2009 five-year stimulus at a time when there is little or no output or unemployment gap. In other words, the plan is pro-cyclical stimulus that will likely end up generating "too much" growth at a time when inflation expectations are already rising and the output gap is closing. The downside could be a rate-hike induced recession in 12-18 months. In terms of its impact on debt levels, infrastructure spending is less of a concern. The federal share of that $550 billion - i.e. the size of the tax credit for private participants - is going to be much smaller. During the campaign Trump implied $1 trillion in new investments over ten years, but the federal tax credit would have been a "deficit neutral" $137 billion. Applying the same ratio, back of envelope, Trump now aims for a $75 billion tax credit for the $550 billion worth of projects. But there will also likely be other components to the plan, such as federal support for state and local debt-financed infrastructure. Thus the headline size of Trump's infrastructure plan is far bigger than the federal commitment. Still, investors should appreciate that despite its modest size, the plan marks a break from the austerity-focused past. Bottom Line: Trump's election signals an anti-austerity turn in U.S. politics from which the fiscal hawks in the GOP cannot hide. Trump will ultimately receive congressional support on infrastructure spending, possibly bipartisan, and this "Return of G" will mark an important inflection point in U.S. economic policy.14 Immigration Globalization is, broadly defined, the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Trump began his campaign in June 2015 with a blistering speech opposing illegal immigration. His anti-immigrant rhetoric ratcheted up from that point, but while the media focused on the alleged xenophobia of his comments, Trump's message was consistently focused on the economic downside of an "open borders" policy. Since the election, Trump's rhetoric on immigration has dramatically softened. The Plan There are two components of Trump's immigration plan as far as we can tell: deportation and border enforcement. On the first, Trump's primary goal is to terminate Obama's "two illegal executive amnesties," i.e. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).15 This means he opposes two programs that are already frozen. In addition, he has pledged to deport 2-3 million undocumented immigrants, emphasizing criminals and drug offenders. This is comparable to Obama's 2.5 million deportations from 2009-15, the highest clip on record. We expect Trump to accelerate the pace of deportations, but it is by no means clear that he will do so, or do so dramatically. There is as yet no clear plan to deal with high-skilled immigrants, especially those arriving on H-1B non-immigrant visas authorizing temporary employment. Trump has made conflicting statements regarding the H-1B program, saying he wanted to keep attracting highly skilled workers to the U.S. but also criticizing the program specifically during a debate. Trump's pick for the attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, is a big opponent of the program. There is considerable evidence that the H-1B program hurts the wages of domestic workers, particularly in the tech sector.16 As for Trump's notorious "border wall," it is shaping up to be a change in degree, not kind. The Clinton administration's "deterrence through prevention" policy, beginning in 1994, and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, have led to extensive fencing and wall construction along the border over the past two decades. Trump will seek to fill gaps, reinforce border barriers, and probably erect better fences near population centers as more visible signs of his achievements. But he will not be building a Great Wall of Trump. The Constraints There are no major constitutional constraints on any of the proposals, since Trump is reversing the Obama administration's illegal non-enforcement of existing immigration law.17 The chief constraint Trump faces when it comes to increasing the pace of deportations and building enhanced walling and fencing is the cost. The threat to make Mexico provide all the funds is going to be watered down in negotiations.18 Trump could increase the Department of Homeland Security's budget, which slowed from 12% annual growth under Bush to 2.7% under Obama. Presumably congressional opposition would not be too virulent given the purpose. But spending on immigration enforcement already outpaces that of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined. A bigger constraint is whether, after the border is "normalized," Trump will follow through on his promise to make a "determination" on what to do with the non-criminal illegal immigrants. This language implies that he is ultimately amenable to comprehensive immigration reform and even a path to citizenship - a proposal that has already passed the Senate in an earlier form. To pass such a comprehensive reform bill, however, Trump will need to work with the Democrats in the Senate as they can and will filibuster any immigration reform bill that does not have a path towards some form of amnesty for the immigrants in the country. What of the timing? Deportations can begin promptly upon taking office - the agencies are already capable. Increasing border enforcement and structures will likely go into his first fiscal 2018 budget request - we expect the GOP Congress to be receptive. As for broader immigration reform, these will be the slowest to materialize, if ever. Previous GOP immigration reform laws passed after the midterm elections in 1986 and 1990, so 2018 may be a useful marker. The Impact On the margin, less immigration into the U.S. should raise domestic wages, particularly for the two sectors where low-skilled immigrants are most likely to be employed: agriculture and construction. Bottom Line: Trump's immigration policy is hardly revolutionary, despite his campaign focus on the issue. He has few constraints to his announced policies, but they are likely to be unimpressive in scope. There are three potential risks to our sanguine view. First, Trump decides to deport all the 11 million illegal migrants in the country, causing considerable political and social unrest. Second, he actually means what he says about Mexico paying for the wall. Third, he tries to end the H-B1 high-skilled temporary workers program. Reforming the overall immigration process - including a possible pathway to citizenship - is constrained by Democrats' control of the Senate and will therefore likely proceed on a longer timeframe (perhaps even after 2020). Trade Trump's trade protectionism is the main risk to markets and global risk assets. His victory represents a true break with the past seventy years of ever-greater globalization (Chart 14). We have expected the trend of de-globalization since, at least, 2014. However, we are surprised how quickly the issue became the electoral issue. Chart 14Globalization Peaked Before Trump Investors now have to re-price numerous assets for the de-globalization premium. The Plan Trump has threatened to name China a currency manipulator on day one in office, impose a 45% across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods, and a 35% tariff on Mexican goods. He has committed to canceling the U.S.'s biggest trade initiative in the twenty-first century, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and he has threatened to renegotiate NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, leaving U.S. tariffs with nothing but Smoot-Hawley to keep them tethered to earth. Thus Trump's victory threatens to become not only the chief symptom of "peak globalization"19 but also a great aggravator of it and cause of further de-globalization going forward (Chart 15). Chart 15De-Globalization To Continue There are signs that Trump may act on his rhetoric and enact a radical change in U.S. trade policy. Two of his top advisers, Dan DiMicco and Robert Lighthizer, are outspoken economic nationalists and "China bashers." DiMicco has dedicated his life to fighting Chinese mercantilism and believes that the U.S. and China are "already in a trade war; we [the U.S.] just haven't shown up yet."20 Yet there are also signs that Trump intends only to drive a hard bargain, not start a trade war. For instance, he says his first action will be to rip up the TPP, but this deal has not been ratified and was internationally controversial because it excluded China (as well as U.S. allies Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines). Moreover, while Trump says he will deem China a currency manipulator on day one in office, this is largely a symbolic act that entails no automatic, concrete punitive measures.21 Therefore Trump could take these two actions alone, or other symbolic ones, to prove that he is an economic patriot, and then settle down to "renegotiate" key trade relationships along the lines of the status quo. It is too soon to draw conclusions, but we do not think things will turn out as peachy as the best-case scenario. This is in large part due to the fact that the U.S. president has tremendous leeway on trade. The Constraints The U.S. president has few constraints when it comes to trade policy, for the following reasons:22 Delegated powers from Congress: Congress is the constitutional power that governs trade with foreign states. However, Congress passes laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies. Even when Congress approves a trade deal like NAFTA, it is the president who is empowered to lower tariffs - and therefore the president can issue a new proclamation raising them. The past century has produced a series of laws that give Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Table 1).23 A president's legal advisors are only too happy to use their imaginations. Nixon invoked the Korean War, which ended in 1952, as a justification for a 10% surcharge tariff on all dutiable goods in 1971, simply because the Korean state of emergency had never officially ended! Table 1Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Executive power over foreign policy: The executive branch is the constitutional power that governs foreign relations. Since international economics are inseparable from foreign relations and national security, the president has prerogative over matters even remotely touching trade. Both Congress and the judicial branch will tend to defer to a president in exercising these powers as well - at least until a gross subversion of national interest occurs. And even then, it is not clear how the constitutional struggle would play out - the courts always bow to the executive on matters of national security. Wars do not have to be declared for wartime trade powers, so all the U.S.'s various military operations across the world provide fodder for Trump to invoke the Trading With The Enemy Act, giving him power to regulate all forms of trade and seize foreign assets. Time is on the executive's side: Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court move to oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliation from abroad. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress.24 As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. The Impact Trump is deeply committed to a tougher trade stance, has few constraints, and his protectionism deeply resonated with key swing voters. We doubt he will settle for cosmetic changes and the establishment Republican "business as usual." This means China relations are a major risk, especially in the long run. We will expand on these tensions, which will become geopolitical, in an upcoming report. What happens if Trump pursues protectionism wholeheartedly? First, the good. On the margin, some trade protections could attract foreign companies to relocate to the U.S. and discourage American companies from outsourcing - boosting investment and wages. It could also help slow the decline of American manufacturing employment. A simple comparison with Europe and Japan shows that the decrease of manufacturing jobs has been more dramatic in the U.S., so policy may be able to conserve what is left (Chart 16). Second, the bad. All the developed countries have seen manufacturing jobs decrease, and not only because of globalization. Technological advancement has played a major role as well. You can block off foreign goods, but you cannot roll back the march of the automatons (Chart 17), as our colleagues at U.S. Investment Strategy recently pointed out.25 Trump's blue collar workers may realize, after four years of protectionism that jobs are not coming back while the WalMart bills are getting pricier. Who will they vote for after that realization sets in? Chart 16U.S. Manufacturing Decline##br## Sharper Than In Other DM Chart 17Reasons For Robots##br## To Replace Workers Third, the ugly. If the U.S. goes protectionist, it will pull the rug out from neoliberalism globally and provide cover for similar protectionist realignments around the world - retaliatory as well as copy-cat. A falling tide lowers all boats. Worse than that, the decline in trade, insofar as it forces countries to rely on domestic markets, pursue spheres of influence, and protect access to vital commodities, could spark military conflict. Germany and Japan both started World War II precisely because their autarkic fantasies required expansion and pre-emptive warfare. This would be the mercantilist future that we warned clients of earlier this year.26 None of this is a foregone conclusion. There is simply too little information to judge which way the Trump administration will go - and how fast. But the fact remains that on trade, more so than anything else, Trump will be unconstrained. Bottom Line: De-globalization is the major risk of the Trump presidency.27 How Trump handles relations with China in 2017 will be the key indicator of whether he aims to revolutionize U.S. trade policy to the detriment of global exports and growth. If he blows past the rule of law and imposes steep "retribution" tariffs or quotas right away, then fasten your seat belt. Investment Conclusions For several years we have warned clients that austerity is kaput.28 It was never politically sustainable in the post-Debt Supercycle, low -growth environment that followed the 2008 Great Recession. The pendulum is swinging hard the opposite way, with Trump's heavy-handed, somewhat haphazard approach, adding momentum. Once the U.S. moves against austerity, we expect policymakers in other countries to follow. In the near term, the carnage in long-dated Treasury markets may pause as investors overthink the constraints to "G." Bond yields have already moved quite a bit. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over.29 We continue to recommend that clients play the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener, a position that is in the black by 11.2 basis points since November 1. In the long term, Trump's anti-globalization policies will impact investors the most. More protectionism, less immigration, and dollar-bullish fiscal policies will all be negative for America's MNCs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending, a stronger USD, and corporate tax reform that benefits small and medium enterprises (SMEs) paying the high marginal tax rate will benefit Main Street. As such, the way to play de-globalization in the U.S. is to go long SMEs / short MNCs, a view that we will expand upon in an upcoming collaborative report with BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy. Beyond the U.S., de-globalization will favor domestic consumer-oriented sectors and countries and will imperil international export-oriented sectors and countries. We particularly fear for export-heavy emerging markets, which depend on globalization for both capital and market access. Developed markets should have an easier time transitioning into a more protectionist world. As such, we continue to recommend a structural overweight in DM versus EM. For the time being, we are booking gains on our long S&P 500 / short gold trade, for a gain of 11.53% since November 8, due to our concern that equities may have already priced-in the lifting of animal spirits but not the negatives of de-globalization. Near term risk also abounds for our high-beta positions such as our long Japanese equities trade (gain of 3.99% since initiation on September 26) and long USD/JPY (gain of 3.57%, same initiation day). We will book gains and look to reinitiate both at a later date, given that our positive view on Japan remains the same. We will also close our long European versus global equities view, for a small loss of 1.34%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 In physics, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - fundamental to quantum mechanics - supposes that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known. Trump does not merely "flip flop" on policy issues - as his opponent Secretary Hillary Clinton was often accused of doing - but literally embodies two opposing policy views at the same time. 4 #TrumpisnotLucifer. 5 Reconciliation is a legislative process in the U.S. Senate that limits debate on a budget bill to twenty hours, thus preventing the minority from using the filibuster to veto the process. The procedure has also been used to enact tax cuts. In both 2001 and 2003, the Republican-held Senate used the procedure to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts. 6 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. For analysis, please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, September 16, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 A "flow-through" entity passes income on to the owners and/or investors. As such, the business can avoid double taxation, where both investors and the business are taxed. Only the investors and owners of a flow-through business are taxed on revenues. 8 Several groups would see no substantial tax cuts under the plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 9 A favorable rate of 10% (4% for non-cash assets) will be applied to accumulated earnings prior to 2017, while future overseas earnings will be subject to the corporate tax rate of 15%. The Tax Policy Center projects that $148 billion worth of unpaid tax revenue can be collected through the "deemed" (mandatory) repatriation. 10 The Bush tax cuts were extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, with some exceptions, like for the highest income groups. 11 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. The Trump campaign initially implied a decade-long total investment of $1 trillion "Trump Infrastructure Plan," with the government contributing a seed amount. The $1 trillion infrastructure-gap estimate comes from the National Association of Manufacturers, "Build to Win," dated 2016, available at www.donaldjtrump.com. The Trump team has reduced its total infrastructure investment goal to $550 billion, a number reaffirmed on Trump's White House transition website, www.greatagain.gov. 12 Please see Daniella Diaz, "Steve Bannon: 'Darkness is good,'" CNN, November 19, 2016, available at edition.cnn.com. Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, said: "Like (Andrew) Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ... It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." 13 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows them to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. However, there is no reason why Republicans, under Trump, could not use the methodology for infrastructure spending as well. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 By these executive orders, the Obama administration sought to prioritize the deportation of "high-risk" illegal immigrants while delaying action on more sympathetic groups. However, only one program was actually implemented (DACA), and both ground to a halt when the Supreme Court ordered an injunction. The justices concurred with lower courts that halted the programs as a result of the burden they would place on state finances. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Immigration Wars: The Coming Battle For Skilled Migrants," dated March 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The courts have already done the heavy lifting. Moreover the nullification of DACA only makes illegal immigrant children eligible for deportation, it does not necessitate that Trump actually deport them - that would require increasing the budget and capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cope with an additional four million deportees, all "low risk" and politically sympathetic. We doubt Trump will do this. 18 If Trump acts on his promise to make Mexico pay for the wall - a claim notably missing from his transition website greatagain.gov - then he may need to precipitate a foreign policy crisis (not to mention court opposition) through his own series of controversial executive orders. Alternatively, he could try to get Congress to amend the Patriot Act to allow the U.S. to extract payments from remittances from the U.S. to Mexico, but he would be at risk of a Senate filibuster. Both pose significant constraints. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Lisa Reisman, "Nucor Provides Testimony To US House Ways And Means Committee On China Exchange Rate Policy," Metal Miner, September 16, 2010, available at www.agmetalminer.com. 21 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 In what follows we are indebted to an excellent paper by Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 23 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 24 A Federal District Court and the Supreme Court ruled against Harry Truman's executive orders to seize steel mills during the Korean War, but Truman's lawyers did not provide a statutory basis for his actions - they simply argued that the constitution did not limit the president's powers! 25 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Easier Fiscal, Tighter Money?," dated November 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Austerity Is Kaput," dated May 8, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. Even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. Trade friction between the U.S. and China may increase with product-specific tariffs, but that a broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may be becoming less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. Over the long run, the "normal" negative correlation between the performance of exchange rate and that of the stock market should also emerge with regards to the RMB and Chinese stocks. Feature Financial markets will continue to grapple with what U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will bring to the global economy as we head into the final trading weeks of 2016. His signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, a more restrictive immigration policy, and trade protectionism - have already led to a significant repricing of risk asset, and will continue to unsettle investors. As far as China is concerned, the upshot is that more fiscal stimulus under President Trump will generate stronger American demand, which could spill over to China. The downside risk is undoubtedly protectionism, which will cast a long shadow on an economy that is still heavily dependent on overseas markets.1 President-elect Trump declared on the campaign trail that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, accompanied by punitive tariffs on Chinese imports that could reach 45%. This adds a major uncertainty to the growth outlook for China next year. Conditions And Remedies For A Currency Manipulator For now, it is impossible to predict what President Trump will do. He has become notably more pragmatic since his election victory. In his first policy statement, he declared his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as his top priority on trade, while avoiding further China-bashing. However, the true color of his trade policy remains unclear. What is more certain is that the basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. The existing Treasury review process of foreign exchange practices is a formal process laid out in statutory law that governs the reporting process, the need for negotiations in cases of manipulation, and the recommended trade remedies if negotiations fail. Specifically, there are three conditions a nation must meet to be labeled a currency manipulator: It runs a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S.; It has a material current account surplus; and It has engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market. In China's case, the country does run a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S., but its current account surplus as a share of GDP has declined from a peak of 10% in 2007 to 2.5% currently (Chart 1). More importantly, while China's foreign exchange market intervention has indeed been one-sided since 2014, the effort has been to prop up the RMB against the dollar. Without the PBoC's intervention, the RMB would have fallen further, potentially substantially. The RMB may have met all three criteria for currency manipulation before the global financial crisis, but the case is a lot harder to make at the moment. Chart 1Conditions For A Currency Manipulator Moreover, even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. The U.S. Treasury is required to negotiate with alleged currency manipulators, utilizing several "sticks" if negotiations fail: Prohibit the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from financing (including providing insurance to) new projects in that country; Prohibit the federal government from procuring from that country; Seek additional surveillance of the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of that country through the International Monetary Fund; Take into account the currency practices in negotiating new bilateral or regional trade agreements with that country. While these "sticks" may be intimidating enough for small open economies, for a country like China, they are largely irrelevant. There is no ongoing negotiation for bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, and on a federal level the U.S. government rarely procures in China, if at all. Therefore, labeling China a currency manipulator may be a highly symbolic move aimed at satisfying Trump supporters, but the real economic consequences are rather small. To be sure, the U.S. president has enough administrative authority to bypass existing legal constraints and take unilateral action on trade issues. However, that would require extraordinary political capital. Barring this rather "extreme" scenario, we expect trade frictions between the U.S. and China to increase in the form of product-specific tariffs. A broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The Impact On Investment Flows From a balance-of-payment point of view, a country running a trade deficit should not be viewed as a sign that it is losing in bilateral trade. Rather, it reflects capital flows from a surplus country to a deficit country in the form of exported domestic savings. In this vein, China running a chronic current account surplus with the U.S. implies that the country as a whole has been accumulating U.S. assets. By the same token, so long as China runs a current account surplus, it means it is still a net creditor to the rest of the world, and the nation's foreign asset holdings, official and private sector combined, continue to increase. In previous years, it was the Chinese central bank that had increased its holdings of foreign assets, primarily in the form of U.S. Treasurys and other low-risk liquid assets. More recently, as the RMB has been depreciating against the dollar, the Chinese domestic private sector been accumulating foreign assets, particularly denominated in U.S. dollars. In fact, the private sector has taken over as the main source of demand for foreign assets, primarily in risker asset classes such as corporate equities, bonds and real estate. The official sector, on the other hand, has been selling foreign asset holdings, as reflected in China's declining official reserves. In other words, rather than experiencing an exodus of capital, there has been a gigantic "swap" of foreign assets between private and public sector in China. Indeed, Chart 2 shows China's official reserves have dropped significantly in the past two years. Chinese official holdings of Treasurys currently stand at USD 1157 billion, down from USD 1315 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence suggests that buoyant demand among Chinese households for foreign assets, particularly real estate. For the corporate sector, there has been a dramatic increase in overseas mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and other investment activity by Chinese companies, particularly in the U.S. (Chart 3). So far this year, total announced M&A deals by Chinese firms in the U.S. have already tripled compared to last year, however, most are still in progress and pending. Chart 2The Official Sector Is##br## Shedding Foreign Assets... Chart 3... While The Private ##br##Sector Accumulates Looking forward, if the business environment in the U.S. under President Trump becomes less foreign-friendly, it may impact Chinese enterprises' confidence in acquiring U.S. assets, and complicate Chinese companies' M&A deals. At a minimum, the massive increase in Chinese M&A interest in the U.S. will pause until policy visibility improves, while the outlook for many already announced pending deals will remain murky. This may deter further capital flows to the U.S. by the Chinese private sector. Changing Correlation Between The RMB And Stocks? The RMB has continued to drift lower against the dollar in the past week in both the onshore and offshore markets. Interestingly, Chinese stocks have appeared to have largely ignored the RMB's slide and have continued to move higher. This is in stark contrast to last year's panic selloffs that happened whenever RMB appreciation against the dollar appeared to quicken (Chart 4). In August 2015 and January 2016, the RMB's outsized moves against the dollar caused major disruptions in both A shares and H shares, sending shockwaves across the globe. It is too soon to draw definitive conclusions from very short-term moves. However, the changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may have become less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. First, investors may be getting more accustomed to the RMB's rising volatility. The trade-weighted RMB in recent days has been stable, a sign that the RMB's weakness against the dollar is mainly a reflection of the strong dollar. The People's Bank of China and other relevant authorities have also been paying more attention when communicating to market participants, which may also help anchor investors' expectations. Second, in previous episodes of "sharper" RMB depreciation, the Chinese economy was clearly decelerating, and the RMB weakness further amplified investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions. Currently the Chinese economy is showing notable signs of improvement, particularly in the industrial sector, which also lessens investors' concerns. Chart 4The RMB Is Less Troubling ##br##To Market Chart 5The Mirror Image Between Yen ##br##And Japanese Stocks Finally, the market may be starting to reflect the reflationary impact of a weaker currency rather than the negative consequences of RMB depreciation. China's growth improvement is in no small part attributable to the falling exchange rate. This in and of itself limits the RMB's downside, rather than leading to an endless downward spiral. It remains to be seen whether Chinese stocks will stay calm as the RMB continues to depreciate against a surging dollar. Our hunch is that global equity markets, particularly in the U.S., have become complacent with a strong dollar and rising U.S. interest rates, both of which tighten global liquidity conditions. Therefore, global equities are vulnerable to downside risk, which could spill over to the Chinese market. For now, we are staying on the sidelines and do not suggest investors chase the rally in Chinese equities. However, over the long run, we expect investors will eventually come to terms with the "new normal" for the RMB as it becomes an important macro factor for the economy and stock market. Chart 5 shows that the performance of Japanese stocks has almost been a mirror image of the yen/dollar exchange rate, in which a weaker yen boosts Japan's growth profile as well as stock prices, and vice versa. Barring a crisis scenario, such a correlation will also emerge between the RMB and Chinese stocks over the long run. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture", dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong Chart I-2BMedium Expansions Chart I-2CA Short Expansion Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.

Highlights The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. However, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. in China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s. The case of China U.S. steel trade dispute suggests that unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. Feature Global financial markets have gradually been coming to terms with the concept of President Donald Trump. Interestingly, U.S. equity market participants appear to be cheering on a potentially sizable fiscal spending package under the new administration, which has boosted industrial sector stocks over the past week. Markets in Asia, particularly Chinese H shares, however, have been less upbeat and have focused more on a possible protectionism backlash emanating from the U.S. under the new leadership. Tough talk on China has featured in every U.S. presidential campaign going back to Nixon reaching out to China in the early 1970s - from Jimmy Carter's strong condemnation of Nixon-Kissinger's "immoral" secret diplomacy of "ass kissing" the Chinese, to Bill Clinton's harsh warnings to the "butchers of Beijing", to repeated pledges by Obama in the 2008 campaign to label China as a "currency manipulator" - all of which signaled an immediate confrontation. Once in office, however, all candidates significantly softened their rhetoric, as government policies require much more realistic and thoughtful discussion, negotiation and compromise. Furthermore, given the huge importance of trade for both economies, a full-fledged trade war between the U.S. and China would risk the growth recession and enormous financial volatility around the globe, a lose-lose outcome hardly conceivable to anyone, no matter how much chest-thumping and aggrandizing is involved. To be sure, the threat of protectionism should not be downplayed. It appears clear that president-elect Trump will be less accommodative to free trade than his predecessors, which is confirmed by his choice of Mr. Dan Dimicco, a former CEO of an American steelmaker and an outspoken critic of U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, to head his trade transition team. However, it is unpredictable at the moment what specific measures he would take to be able to assess potential consequences. It is therefore more useful to take a step back and look at the big picture of trade relations between the two countries. China-U.S. Bilateral Trade Chinese sales to the U.S. far outnumber its purchases, leading to an ever-growing trade surplus in China's favor (Chart 1). In fact, the U.S. accounts for over half of China's total trade surplus - a key piece of evidence supporting some American politicians' accusation of China's purported currency manipulation and unfair trade practices. The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. Underneath, however, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. as part of China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s (Chart 2). The share of U.S.-bound Chinese exports has remained roughly unchanged since the global financial crisis, and down significantly from pre-crisis levels. Chinese sales to the U.S. in recent years have been largely in line with overall export growth. On the contrary, American shipments to China have increased sharply as a share of total exports. Over the past five years, China has accounted for almost 20% of the net increase in U.S. exports, far outpacing any other American trade partner. Chart 1U.S.-China##br## Bilateral Trade Chart 2China Depends More ##br##On The U.S. Than Vice Versa Conventional wisdom holds that protectionist policies will be of more benefit to those countries running deficits in bilateral trade. However, a trade war with China would also remove the biggest source of marginal demand for American goods, which would be met with strong domestic resistance. Anti-Dumping And China's Trade Performance China is no stranger to anti-dumping measures in global trade. The country accounts for 30% of all anti-dumping actions initiated by World Trade Organization (WTO) members in recent years, even though Chinese products account for only about 14% of total global goods exports. China has not been regarded as a "market economy" by major developed countries, making it an easier target for punitive tariffs and other barriers under WTO rules. A case in point is steel products, which remain center stage in the ongoing trade dispute between China and the U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002 imposed tariffs of up to 30% on a broad range of Chinese steel products, while the Obama administration further upped the ante with various product-specific punitive measures during his tenor. These measures have dramatically changed steel trade for both countries: From the U.S. side, total American steel imports have remained largely range-bound in the past 20 years, but Chinese steel products have had a dramatic rollercoaster ride (Chart 3). Punitive tariffs led to a collapse of Chinese steel in the U.S. market, accounting for a mere 3% of total U.S. steel imports, down from a peak of almost 20% in 2008. However, the losses to Chinese steelmakers have simply been filled by other exporting countries. For example, U.S. steel imports from Brazil have roared back to historical high levels as Chinese products plummeted (Chart 3, bottom panel). On the Chinese side, Chinese steel products suffered huge market share losses in the U.S., but the country's total steel exports have continued to make new record highs, as it has dramatically expanded sales to other markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 4). The U.S. currently accounts for about 1% of total Chinese steel exports, down from about 10% at the peak, while Vietnam has rapidly replaced the U.S. as a key market for Chinese steelmakers to expand overseas sales. Chart 3China In U.S. Steel Imports Chart 4U.S. In Chinese Steel Exports Moreover, the punitive measures imposed by the U.S. have pushed Chinese steelmakers into higher value-added products. The top panel of Chart 5 shows the average price of American steel imports from China was roughly comparable to U.S. steel purchases from other developing countries in the late 1990s, while Germany and Japanese steelmakers traditionally occupied the higher-priced segments. The situation has shifted quickly in the past two decades: The unit price of Chinese steel sales in the U.S. has risen rapidly relatively to their peers, increasingly challenging producers in more advanced countries. Other emerging countries have filled the space left by China and remained at the lower end of the spectrum. Similarly, on the Chinese side, the average price of Chinese steel exports to the U.S. has increased sharply in recent years relative to other major markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, the average price of China's steel products exported to the U.S. is far higher than to other countries - almost triple that to other emerging countries. This confirms that Chinese steelmakers have been moving up the value-added ladder in the U.S. market, but have been "dumping" cheaper products to other developing countries. The important point here is that the punitive tariffs have indeed significantly reduced Chinese sales to the U.S., but other steel-producing countries have simply "stolen" China's lunch. By the same token, unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. Moreover, President Trump may still target Chinese steel products as a highly symbolic gesture to show his toughened stance on China and to keep his campaign trail promises of reviving rust-belt states - the relevance of which, however, has diminished dramatically, as steel products now account for only a tiny fraction of total trade between these two countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Steelmakers##br## Are Moving Up The Value Chain Chart 6Steel Is No Longer ##br##Relevant For China-U.S. Trade U.S. And China In Global Trade A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. For tradable goods, it is well known that China has long surpassed the U.S. as the world top exporter. For imports of goods, the U.S. is still bigger, but the gap has narrowed dramatically (Chart 7). China has already become a bigger market than the U.S. for a growing list of countries, particularly commodities producers and China's Asian neighbors. What is much less known is that Chinese imports of services just this year also surpassed that of the U.S., marking an important milestone in China's global reach and influence (Chart 8). Moreover, China's exports of services are much smaller, leaving a deficit almost as large as U.S. service surpluses with the rest of the world. Chart 7U.S. And China##br## In Global Trade Of Goods Chart 8China Surpassed##br##The U.S. In Service Imports In a world starving for growth, China remains a bright spot. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. China will inevitably continue to explore bilateral and multilateral free-trade agreements (FTA) with its main trade partners. China currently has 19 FTAs under construction, among which 14 agreements have been signed and implemented. Together, FTAs cover an increasingly bigger share of Chinese exports, higher than Chinese sales to the U.S. (Chart 9). Chart 9China Sells More To FTA##br## Countries Than To The U.S. Meanwhile, China will likely take a more active role in negotiating the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)" - an ambitious multilateral agreement on trade and investments that covers almost half of the world population and output. On the other hand, the outlook of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) under President Trump has become more uncertain, which may also push other emerging countries to participate in China-initiated trade deals. If President Trump indeed turns more inward, the center of global trade will further shift toward China. A Word On The RMB And Industrial Stocks The RMB has continued to drift lower against the greenback in recent days, which still reflects the dollar's broad strength rather than RMB weakness. In fact, the trade-weighted RMB has strengthened notably (Chart 10). Conspiracy theories abound that China may engineer a flash-crash of the RMB before President Trump takes office to "preempt" any protectionist pressures. This scenario certainly cannot be ruled out, but it is highly unlikely in our view, as it may further intensify trade tensions between the two countries, making Trump's trade policy on China even less predictable. In short, we maintain the view that the near-term RMB outlook is entirely dictated by the movement of the dollar, and that the Chinese authorities should be able to maintain exchange rate stability, as discussed in recent reports.1 Turning to the stock market, Chinese industrial stocks have not joined the sharp post-Trump rally of their U.S. counterparts, likely a reflection of investors' conviction that protectionism in the U.S. may benefit domestic firms at the expense of foreign entities, particularly Chinese firms. (Chart 11). However, similar to almost all other major sectors, the profitability of Chinese industrial names is almost identical to their American peers, but they are trading at hefty discounts based on conventional valuation indicators, reflecting a much larger risk premium in Chinese stocks. For now, we remain on the sidelines with respect to Chinese stocks due to developing global uncertainty, as discussed in detail last week.2 Beyond near-term tactical consideration, we expect Chinese shares to resume their uptrend both in absolute terms and against EM and global benchmarks. Chart 10The RMB Remains Stable##br## In Trade-Weighted Terms Chart 11Industrial Stocks:##br## Spot The Differences Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, and "Greater China Currencies: An Overview", dated November 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Trump's election victory means that there is potential for policy settings to flip from "easy money, tight fiscal" to "tight money, easy fiscal" The market implications of that shift are dollar bullish, bond bearish and equity mixed. The major risk is that violent currency and bond market moves rekindle emerging market stress and/or choke off the recovery before fiscal spending kicks in. Trump's trade reform risks being a tax on growth. Businesses may opt to automate instead of hire. A variety of factors now make small caps appealing relative to large caps. Feature Contrary to the pre-election consensus, Donald Trump's election victory has prompted a risk-on rally, based on the notion that Trump's vision of fiscal largesse will be realized (Chart 1). Ultimately, it will only become clear what policy changes are on the table once Trump takes office in January. The consensus at BCA is that Trump will be "unbound" in his first two years as President. Thus, if Trump lives up to his campaign promises, fiscal stimulus and trade restriction will be tabled early in 2017. Chart 1Trump Moves As we argue below, trade restrictions should be viewed as a tax on growth. We have doubts about the link between job creation and tariffs. If anything, imposing tariffs on imports could incite a more intense wave of automation. After all, the cost of capital is still attractive relative to labor costs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending - if delivered even close to the size and scope that Trump has hinted at in his pre-election speeches - will boost GDP growth well above trend in 2017. If that occurs, the dynamic that has existed since 2010, i.e. "tight fiscal, exceptionally easy money policy" will rapidly flip to "easy fiscal, tight money". For the bond market and the U.S. dollar, the investment implications are clear: Treasuries are likely to head higher, and the pressure will be for the U.S. dollar to rise. Implications for equities are less certain. If the U.S. dollar rises, it might rekindle emerging world financial stress and undermine U.S. corporate profits. The rapid rise in yields may not easily be digested by the equity market and it is notable that corporate spreads have not rallied along with other risk assets in recent days. We are comfortable maintaining a defensive stance. Donald Trump said a lot of things to a lot of people during the campaign process. He can't possibly deliver on all of his promises, but earlier this week, BCA sent out a Special Report to all clients, outlining the implications of the election results and what we expect he can accomplish.1 We believe there are three that are especially important for investors to monitor: the potential for trade restrictions, gauging fiscal stimulus and monetary policy settings in this possibly new environment. Stagflation? Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade and the U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Trump can also impose tariffs. All of this is of course inflationary, and it's the nasty kind. We have repeatedly written in this publication that, historically, the U.S. economy only falls into recessions for two reasons. The first is growth-restrictive monetary policy and the second is an adverse supply shock that acts like a tax on growth, e.g. an oil price spike. Tariffs are akin to the latter. Chart 2 shows that as import penetration rose over the past 30 years, tradeable goods price inflation steadily fell. A simple read of the chart suggests that with barriers in place and as import penetration recedes, the process of the past 30 years will reverse and consumer goods prices will rise. This can easily be absorbed if it is accompanied by rising wages via the "onshoring" of jobs. But that is not a foregone conclusion. Instead of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., a more logical decision might be for businesses to further automate production. After all, earlier studies have already concluded that nearly half of all existing jobs are at high risk of being automated over the next decade or so.2 As Chart 3 shows, with the price of capital equipment and software still falling and the cost of capital so low relative to the cost of labor, the incentive to automate instead of hire is high. Chart 2Trade And Inflation Chart 3Tariffs May Lead To Robots, Not Jobs The bottom line is that increased tariffs will increase prices in the near term. But it is hardly clear that this will improve the lives of voters or create a more virtuous economic recovery. Opening The Fiscal Taps... In last week's report, we explored the potential for fiscal spending to turbocharge the U.S. economy. We warned that fiscal multipliers are probably not overly high in the current environment and the effectiveness of fiscal spending is highly dependent on the type of fiscal stimulus. Trump has called for significantly lowering both income and corporate taxes, although his main pitch has been infrastructure spending. The latter tends to have the highest multiplier effects, but can often take a long time to get underway. However, one important point is that Trump will face little political restraint, at least in his first two years in office. Gridlock will not be a problem given that all three Houses are now in GOP hands. And it will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Moreover, the GOP has historically not been that fiscally conservative. Overall, a Trump government will more than make up for the drag from weak state and local spending that we wrote about last week. Exactly how big of an impulse will only become clear once Trump takes office. ...And Tightening The Money Supply? Forecasts about the impact of fiscal spending on 2017 GDP growth are premature, since it is impossible to decipher an action plan from campaign rhetoric. And the severity of stagflation due to trade restrictions will be highly dependent on the form and scope of trade reform. Ergo, it is too early to make bold new assumptions about the path of Fed rate hikes. An aggressive fiscal plan that boosts GDP well above trend growth would force policymakers to revise their expected path of rate hikes higher. That would be a sea change from the past four years, when policymakers have consistently revised the neutral rate down. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked Janet Yellen and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that investigating the Fed will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Market Action The bond market has already priced in more inflation and more growth for 2017 since Trump's victory. 10-year Treasury yields have surged to 2.15% and momentum selling could lift the 10-year Treasury yield even further into oversold territory. But that is not a case to become aggressively underweight duration. Dollar strength and rising bond yields have already tightened financial conditions significantly over the past several weeks. The risk is that these trends go too far in the near term, inflicting economic damage before fiscal spending kicks in. Given the easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth outperformance in the U.S. and rising interest rates, the dollar should rise in the medium term. We remain dollar bulls. We have been surprised by the equity market action since November 8. Although we repeatedly wrote that a Trump victory was unlikely to have meaningful negative consequences for risk asset prices, we did not anticipate a rally. As for equities, our cautiousness toward risk assets in 2016 has been primarily focused on the ongoing headwinds for profits in a demand-deficient economy, especially while margins are falling and valuations are elevated (Chart 4). Greater fiscal spending would surely help to alleviate our concern, although that conclusion seems premature given the lack of contour to Trump's plans so far. Perhaps the greatest downside risk is a reaction from China. After all, Trump's anti-trade rhetoric has been pointed (mostly) at China and Asia. Recall that in August, 2015, the RMB was devalued just weeks ahead of an expected rate hike from the Fed. That devaluation sent shock waves through financial markets and ultimately delayed the Fed rate hike until the end of the year (Chart 5). A similar proactive policy move from Chinese policymakers should be on investors' radars. Overall, we remain comfortable with our cautious equity stance, albeit recent market action has created an entry point in favor of small relative to large cap stocks. Chart 4Equity Fundamentals Still Poor Chart 5China: Global Stability Risk? Enter Small Cap Bias We upgraded small caps relative to large caps to neutral in August. We now recommend investors make the full switch to a small cap bias relative to large caps. Small cap stocks were hit harder than large caps in the weeks leading up to the election, as investors shed riskier assets; we believe this provides a good entry point to a cyclical uptrend in small cap performance (Chart 6). True, at first glance, advocating for small cap exposure appears inconsistent with our overall defensive equity strategy. After all, small cap outperformance tends to be associated with risk-on phases. However, small cap stocks have a variety of other characteristics that currently make them appealing relative to larger caps. Chart 6(Part I) Favor Small/Large Caps Chart 7(Part II) Favor Small/Large Caps Small cap companies tend to be more domestically focused. We expect that U.S. growth will continue to outpace growth overseas. And particularly important, small cap companies, with their domestic focus, are better insulated from dollar strength (Chart 7). Small cap weightings are no longer geared toward cyclical sectors. As part of our cautious strategy, we remain focused on defensive vs. cyclical sectors. There are no major differences between large and small cap defensive and cyclical sector weightings (Table 1). Trump corporate tax reform, if implemented, will favor small, domestic firms. Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates, any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then this would diminish their current tax advantage vis-à-vis smaller companies. Table 1Similar Weightings For Small And Large Cap Cyclicals And Defensives Bottom Line: Small cap outperformance is typically associated with risk-on equity phases. However, valuations now favor small caps. Importantly, small caps are better insulated from dollar strength and are one way to play the domestic vs. global theme. Additionally, smaller firms will be the relative winners from corporate tax reform. Small caps are set to outperform large caps. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 "The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerisation?" Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, September 2013. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process Chart 8. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes remained unchanged this month: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The neutral portfolio recommendation for equities is in line with our qualitative defensive stance, in place since August 2015. Although the technical component of the equity model still has a "buy" signal, the breadth indicator has moved into less favorable territory relative to the momentum indicator. The monetary component has also slightly weakened but retains its positive bias for equities. The earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as expectations for the outlook of corporate profits would need to be bolstered through stronger economic stronger growth over the medium term. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. Even so, despite that the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model still persist, the preference for Treasuries has diminished to some extent. Nevertheless, the valuation component continues trending towards expensive territory and a "buy signal" remains in place Chart 9. Chart 8Portfolio Total Returns Chart 9Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.

BCA will be holding the Dubai session of the BCA Academy seminar on November 28 & 29. This two-day course teaches investment professionals how to examine the economy, policy, and markets; and also makes links between these important factors. Moreover, it represents a great networking opportunity for all attendees. I look forward to seeing you there. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights Donald Trump's victory represents a sea-change for U.S. politics as well as the economy. His expansionary fiscal policy, to be implemented as the labor market's slack evaporates, will boost demand, wages, and will prove inflationary. The Fed will respond with higher rates, boosting the dollar. EM Asian currencies will bear the brunt of the pain. Commodity currencies, especially the AUD, will also be significant casualties. EUR/USD will weaken in the face of a strong greenback, but should outperform most currencies. Key risks involve gauging whether the Fed genuinely wants to create a "high-pressure", economy as well as the potential for Chinese fiscal stimulus. Feature Trump's electoral victory only re-enforces our bullish stance on the dollar. A Trump presidency implies much more fiscal stimulus than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Fed will not be the only game in town to support growth. This strengthens our view that, on a cyclical basis, the OIS curve still underprices the potential for higher U.S. interest rates. In a Mundell-Fleming world, this suggests a much higher exchange rate for the greenback. Additionally, Trump's protectionist views are likely to hit EM economies - China in particular - harder than DM economies. We continue to prefer expressing our bullish dollar view by shorting EM and commodity currencies. Is Trump Handcuffed? Trump's victory reflects a tidal wave of anger and dissatisfaction with the current state of the U.S. economy. Most profoundly, his candidacy was a rallying cry against an increasingly unequal distribution of economic opportunities and outcomes for the U.S. population. As we highlighted last week, since 1981, the top 1% of households have seen their share of income grow by 11%. In fact, while 90% of households have seen their real income contract by 1% since 1980, the top 0.01% of households have seen their real income increase more than five-fold (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The (Really) Rich Got Richer In this context, Trump's appeal, more than his often-distasteful racial or gender rhetoric, has been his talk of protecting the middle class. But, by losing the popular vote, are his hands tied? Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, surmises in a Special Report1 sent to all BCA's clients that it is not the case. First, Trump's victory speech emphasized infrastructure spending, indicating that this is likely to be his first priority. As Chart I-2 illustrates, there is a lot of room for the government to spend on this front. At 1.4% of GDP, government investment is at its lowest level since World War II. Furthermore, according to the Tax Policy Institute, Trump's current plan includes $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. Second, the Republican Party now controls Congress as well as the White House. Not only has the GOP historically rallied around the president when all the levers of power are in the party's hands, but also, the Tea party has been one of Trump's most ardent supporters. Hence, Trump's program is unlikely to be completely squelched by Congress. Third, the GOP is most opposed to government spending when Democrats control the White House. When Republicans are in charge of the executive, the GOP is a much less ardent advocate of government stringency, having increased the deficit in the opening years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Room To Increase##br## Infrastructure Spending Chart I-3Republicans Are Fiscally Responsible ##br##When It Suits them Finally, international relations are the president's prerogative. While there are legal hurdles to renegotiate treaties like NAFTA, Trump can slap tariffs easily, rendering previous arrangements quite impotent. Though protectionism has not been highlighted in Trump's victory speech, the topic's popularity with his core electorate highlights the risk that trade policies could be impacted. Bottom Line: Trump has a mandate to spend and got elected because of his policies that support the middle class. His surprise victory represents a sea-change, a move the rest of the Republican establishment will not ignore. Therefore, we expect Trump to be able to implement large-scale fiscal stimulus. Economic Implications To begin with, Trump is a populist politician. While populism ultimately ends badly, it can generate a growth dividend for many years. Nowhere was this clearer than in 1930s Germany, where Hitler's reign yielded a major economic outperformance of Germany relative to its regional competitors (Chart I-4).2 Government infrastructure spending played a large role in this phenomenon. Also, the Reagan era shows how fiscal stimulus can lead to a boost to growth. From the end of the 1981-82 recession to 1987, U.S. real GDP per capita outperformed that of Europe and Japan, despite the dollar's strength in the first half of the decade. Fascinatingly, the U.S. GDP per capita even outperformed that of the U.K., a country in the midst of the supply-side Thatcherite revolution (Chart I-5). This suggests that the U.S's economic outperformance was not just a reflection of Reagan's deregulatory instincts. Chart I-4Populism Can Boost Growth Chart I-5Reagan Deficits Boosted Growth Too Unemployment is close to its long-term equilibrium, and the hidden labor-market slack has greatly dissipated. Additionally, one of the biggest hurdles facing small businesses is finding qualified labor. In the context of a tight labor market, we anticipate that Trump's fiscal stimulus will not only boost aggregate demand directly, but will also exert significant pressures on already rising wages (Chart I-6). Compounding this effect, if Trump does indeed focus on infrastructure spending, work by BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service shows that this type of stimulus offers the highest fiscal multiplier (Table I-1).3 Chart I-6Stimulating Now Will Feed Wage Growth Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Additionally, a retreat away from globalization, and a move toward slapping more tariffs and quotas on Asia and China would be inflationary. Historically, falling inflation has coincided with falling tariffs as competitive forces increase. This time, with the output gap closing, and the tightening labor market, decreasing the trade deficit could arithmetically push GDP above trend, accentuating wage and inflationary pressures. Finally, for households, a combination of rising wages, elevated consumer confidence, and low financial obligations relative to disposable income could prompt a period of re-leveraging (Chart I-7). Moreover, the median FICO score for new mortgages has fallen from more than 780 in 2013 to 756 today, an easing in lending standard for mortgages. All the factors above suggest that U.S. growth is likely to improve over the next two years, driven by the government and households. It also points towards rising inflationary pressures. As we have highlighted before, the more the economy can generate wage growth to support domestic consumption, the more it becomes resilient in the face of a stronger dollar. The tyranny of the feedback loop between the dollar and growth will loosen. This environment would be one propitious for the Fed to hike interest rates as the economy becomes less dependent on lower rates for support. In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day. Bottom Line: Trump is likely to boost U.S. economic activity through fiscal stimulus, especially infrastructure spending. Since the slack in the economy is now small, especially in the labor market, this increases the likelihood that the Fed will finally be able to durably push up interest rates (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Household Debt Load Can Grow Again Chart I-8Vanishing Slack = Higher Rates Currency Market Implications The one obvious effect from a Trump victory is that it re-enforces our core theme that the dollar will strengthen on a 12 to 18-months basis as the market reprices the Fed's path. However, we expect Asian currencies to be viciously hit by this new round of dollar strength. For one, compared to the drubbing LatAm currencies received, KRW, TWD, and SGD are only trading 13%, 9%, and 15% below their post 2010 highs. Most importantly though, EM Asia has been the main beneficiary of 35 years of expanding globalization. Countries like China or the Asian tigers have registered world-beating growth rates thanks to a growth strategy largely driven by exports (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Former Winners Become Losers Under Trump We expect these economies and currencies to suffer the most from Trump's retribution and from a continued structural underperformance of global trade. China, Korea, and co. are likely to be hit by tariffs under a Trump administration. Also, under a Trump administration, the likelihood of implementation of new international trade treaties is near zero. Therefore, the continuous expansion of globalization of the previous decades is over, and may even somewhat reverse. Furthermore, a move toward a more multipolar world, like the interwar period, tends to be associated with falling trade engagement. Trump's desire to diminish the global deployment of U.S. troops would only add to such worries. Regarding the RMB, the picture is murky. On the one hand, the RMB is trading 4% below fair value and does not need much devaluation from a competitiveness perspective. However, Chinese internal deflationary pressures, courtesy of much overcapacity, remain strong (Chart I-10). Easing these pressures requires a lower RMB. Moreover, the offshore yuan weakened substantially in the wake of Trump's victory, yet the onshore one did not, suggesting that the PBoC is depleting its reserves to support the currency. This tightens domestic liquidity conditions, exacerbating the deflationary forces in the country. Chart I-10Plenty Of Excess Capacity In China This means that China is in a bind as a depreciating currency will elicit the wrath of president Trump. The risk is currently growing that China will let the RMB fall substantially between now and January 20. Such a move would magnify any devaluating pressures on other Asian exchange rates. While it is difficult to be bullish MXN outright on a cyclical basis when expecting a broad dollar rally, the recent weakness in MXN is overdone. Mexico has not benefited nearly as much from globalization as Asian nations. Also, after a 60% appreciation in USD/MXN since June 2014, even after the imposition of tariffs, Mexico will still be competitive. Even then, the likelihood and severity of any tariffs enacted on Mexico might be exaggerated by markets. In fact, President Nieto's invitation to Trump last summer may prove to have been a particularly uncanny political move. Investors interested in buying the peso may want to consider doing it against the won, potentially one of the biggest losers from a Trump presidency. Outside of EM, the AUD is at risk. Australia sits in the middle of the pack in terms of economic and export growth during the globalization era, but it is very exposed to Asian economic activity. Historically, the AUD has been tightly correlated with Asian currencies (Chart I-11). Adding insult to injury, Australia is a large metals producer, which means that Australia's terms of trade are highly levered to the Chinese investment cycle, the main source of demand for iron ore, copper, etc. (Chart I-12). With China already swimming in over capacity, unless the government enacts a new infrastructure package, Chinese imports of raw materials will remain weak. Chart I-11AUD Will Suffer If Asian Currencies Fall Chart I-12China Is The Giant In The Room The NZD is also likely to suffer against the USD. The currency's sensitivity to the dollar strength and EM spreads is very high. However, we expect AUD/NZD to remain depressed. The outlook for relative terms of trades supports the kiwi as ag-prices will be less impacted by a slowdown in Chinese capex than metals. Additionally, on most metrics, the New Zealand economy is outperforming that of Australia (Chart I-13). The CAD should beat both antipodean currencies. First, it is less sensitive to the U.S. dollar or EM spreads than both the AUD and the NZD, reflecting its tighter economic link with the U.S. We also expect some softer rhetoric and actions from Trump when it comes to implementing trade restrictions with Canada than with Asia. Finally, while we are very concerned for the outlook for metals, the outlook for energy is superior. Yes, a strong greenback is a headwind for oil prices, but a Trump presidency is likely to result in strong household consumption. Vehicle-miles-driven growth would remain elevated, suggesting healthy oil demand from the U.S. Meanwhile, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects the drawdown in global oil inventories to accelerate, particularly if Saudi Arabia and Russia can agree on a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of the month, which is bullish for oil (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Stronger Kiwi Domestic Fundamentals Chart I-14Better Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil We also remain yen bears. The isolationist stance of Trump is likely to incentivize Abe to double down on fiscal stimulus, especially on the military. Japan is currently massively outspent on that front by China (Chart I-15). With the BoJ pegging policy rates at 0% for the foreseeable future, the yen will swoon on the back of falling real yields. Moreover, if our bearish stance on Asian currencies materializes itself, this will put competitive pressures on the yen, creating an additional negative. For the euro, the picture is less clear. The euro remains the mirror image of the dollar, so a strong greenback and a weak euro are synonymous. Additionally, Trump stimulus, if enacted, will ultimately result in higher nominal and real yields in the U.S. relative to Europe, especially as the euro area does not display any signs of being at full employment (Chart I-16). That being said, the euro is currently very cheap, supported by a current account surplus, and the ECB might begin tapering asset purchases in the second half of 2017. Combining these factors together, while we remain cyclically bearish on EUR/USD - a move below parity over the next 12-18 months is a growing possibility - the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and even the yen. We are looking to buy EUR/JPY, especially considering the skew in positioning (Chart I-17). Chart I-15Japan Will Spend More On Its ##br##Military With Or Without Trump Chart I-16European Labor Market##br## Slack Is Evident Chart I-17EUR/JPY Has##br## Room To Rally Finally, the outlook for the pound remains clouded until we get a better sense of the High Court's decision on the government's appeal regarding the need for a Parliamentary vote on Brexit. We expect the court's decision to re-inforce the previous ruling, which means that the pound could strengthen as the probability of a "soft Brexit" grows. The resilience of the pound in the face of the recent dollar's strength points to such an outcome. Risk To Our View And Short-Term Dynamics The biggest risk to our view is obviously that Trump's fiscal plans never pan out. However, since our bullish stance on the dollar predates Trump's electoral victory, we would therefore remain dollar bulls, albeit less so. Nonetheless, limited fiscal stimulus would likely cause a temporary pullback in the dollar. Chart I-18A Mispricing Or A Signal? Another short-term risk is the Fed. Currently, inflation expectations in the U.S. have shot up. If the Fed does not increase rates in December - this publication currently thinks the FOMC will increase rates then - the dollar will fall as this move will put downward pressures on U.S. real rates. This is especially relevant as the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 2.8%, in line with the Fed's estimate of the long-term equilibrium Fed funds rates as per the "dots". A big risk for our EM / commodity currency view is China. China may not respond to Trump by aggressively bidding down the CNY before January 20. Instead, to counteract the negative effect of Trump on Chinese export growth, China might instigate more fiscal stimulus, plans that always have a large infrastructure component. The recent parabolic move in copper needs monitoring (Chart I-18). Bottom Line: A Trump victory is a massive boon for the dollar. However, because Trump represents a move away from globalization, the main casualties of the Trump-dollar rally will be Asian currencies and the AUD. The CAD and the NZD will also undergo downward pressures, but less so. Finally, while EUR/USD is likely to fall, the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and the yen. As a risk, in the short-term, an absence of Fed hike in December would represent the biggest source of weakness for the dollar. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 To be clear, while we do find some of Trump comments over the past year highly distasteful, we are not suggesting that he is a re-incarnation of Hitler or that his presidency is doomed to end in a massive global conflict. It is only an economic parallel. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it." - U.S. President Elect Donald Trump (November 9, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "I'm very skeptical as far as further interest rate cuts or additional expansionary monetary policy measures are concerned -- over time, the benefits of these measures decrease, while the risks increase" - ECB Executive Board Member Sabine Lautenschlaeger (November 7,2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "In order for long-term interest rate control to work effectively, it is important to maintain the credibility in the JGB market through the government's efforts toward establishing sustainable fiscal structures" - BoJ Minutes (November 10, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "[The impact of a weak pound on inflation]... will ultimately prove temporary, and attempting to offset it fully with tighter monetary policy would be excessively costly in terms of foregone output and employment growth. However, there are limits to the extent to which above-target inflation can be tolerated" - BOE Monetary Policy Summary (November 3, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Inflation remains quite low...Subdued growth in labor costs and very low cost pressures elsewhere in the world mean that inflation is expected to remain low for some time" - RBA Monetary Policy Statement (October 31, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Weak global conditions and low interest rates relative to New Zealand are keeping upward pressure on the New Zealand dollar exchange rate. The exchange rate remains higher than is sustainable for balanced economic growth and, together with low global inflation, continues to generate negative inflation in the tradables sector. A decline in the exchange rate is needed" - RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler (November 10, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We have studied the research and the theory behind frameworks such as price-level targeting and targeting the growth of nominal gross domestic product. But, to date, we have not seen convincing evidence that there is an approach that is better than our inflation targets" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (November 1, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Banks' capital ratios have doubled since the financial crisis and liquidity has improved. At the same time, some aspects of the Norwegian economy make the financial system vulnerable. This primarily relates to high property price inflation combined with high household indebtedness" - Norges Bank Deputy Governor Jon Nicolaisen (November 2, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "...the weak inflation outcomes in recent months illustrate the uncertainty over how quickly inflation will rise. The Riksbank now assesses that it will take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent. The upturn in inflation therefore needs continued strong support" - Riksbank Minutes (November 9, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades