Sectors

Recommended Allocation Highlights We are late cycle. Strong growth could turn in 2018 from a positive for risk assets into a negative. More risk-averse investors may thus want to turn cautious. But the last year of a bull run can be profitable, and we don't expect a recession until late 2019. For now, therefore, our recommendations remain pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We may turn more defensive in 2H 2018 if the Fed tightens above equilibrium. We expect inflation to pick up in 2018, which will lead the Fed to hike maybe four times. This will push long rates to 3%, and strengthen the U.S. dollar. Equities should outperform bonds in this environment. We prefer euro zone and Japanese equities over U.S., and remain underweight EM. Late-cycle sectors such as Financials and Industrials, should do well. We also favor corporate bonds and private equity. Feature Overview Fin de cycle Global economic growth in 2017 was robust for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 1). Forecasts for 2018 put growth slightly lower, but are likely to be revised up. However, as the year rolls on, the strong economic momentum may turn from being a positive for risk assets into a negative. U.S. output is now above potential, according to IMF estimates. As Chart 2 shows, historically recessions - and consequently equity bear markets - have usually come within a year or two of the output gap turning positive. With the economy operating above capacity, inflation pressures force the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which eventually causes a slowdown. Chart 1Growth Finally On A Firm Footing Global Growth Has Accelerated Chart 2Recessions Follow Output Gap Closing That is exactly how BCA sees the next couple of years panning out, leading to a recession perhaps in the second half of 2019. U.S. inflation was soft in 2017, but underlying inflation pressures are picking up, with core CPI inflation having bottomed, and small companies saying they are raising prices (Chart 3). Add to that wage pressures (with unemployment heading below 4% in 2018), tax cuts (which might boost growth by 0.2-0.3% points in their first year) and a higher oil price (we expect Brent to average $67 a barrel during the year), and core PCE inflation is likely to rise to 2%, in line with the Fed's expectations. This means the market is too sanguine about the risk of monetary tightening in the U.S. It has priced in less than two rates hikes in 2018, compared to the Fed's three dots, and almost nothing after that (Chart 4). If inflation picks up as we expect, four rate hikes in 2018 could be on the cards. Chart 3Inflation Pressures Picking Up Chart 4Market Still Underpricing Fed Hikes The consequences of this are that bond yields are likely to rise. Despite a significant market repricing since September of Fed behavior, long-term rates have not risen much, leading to a flattening yield curve (Chart 5). The market has essentially priced in that inflation will not rebound and that, consequently, the Fed will be making a policy mistake by hiking further. If, therefore, we are correct that inflation does reach 2%, the yield curve would be likely to steepen over the next six months, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reaching 3% by mid-year. Other developed economies, however, have less urgency to tighten monetary policy and we, therefore, see the U.S. dollar appreciating. The only other major economy with a positive output gap currently is Germany (Chart 6). However, the ECB will continue to set policy for the weaker members of the euro area, and output gaps in France (-1.8% of GDP), Italy (-1.6%) and Spain (-0.7%) remain significantly negative. In the absence of inflation pressures, the ECB won't raise rates until late 2019. Japan, too, continues to struggle to bring inflation up the BOJ's 2% target and the Yield Curve Control policy will therefore stay in place, meaning that a rise in global rates will weaken the yen. Chart 5Is Fed Making A Policy Mistake? Chart 6Still A Lot Of Negative Output Gaps This sort of late-cycle environment is a tricky one for investors. The catalysts for strong performance in equities that we foresaw a few months ago - U.S. tax cuts and upside surprises in earnings - have now largely played out. Global earnings will probably rise next year by around 10-12%, in line with analysts' forecasts. With multiples likely to slip a little as the Fed tightens, high single-digit performance is the best that investors should expect from equities. The macro environment which we expect, would be more negative for bonds than positive for equities. That argues for the stock-to-bond ratio to continue to rise until closer to the next recession (Chart 7). And, for now, none of the recession indicators we have been consistently monitoring over the past months is flashing a warning signal (Chart 8). Chart 7Stock-To-Bond Ratio Likely To Rise Further Chart 8Recession Warning Signals Still Not Flashing More risk-averse investors might chose to reduce their exposure to risk assets now, given how close we are to the end of the cycle. But this would be at the risk of leaving some money on the table, since the last year of a bull run can often be the most profitable (remember 1999?). We, therefore, maintain our recommendation for pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts: overweight equities versus bonds, overweight credit, overweight higher-beta equity markets and sectors, and a preference towards riskier alternative assets. We may move towards a more defensive stance in mid to late 2018, when we see clearer signs that the Fed has tightened above equilibrium or that the risk of recession is rising. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Be The Impact Of The U.S. Tax Cuts? It is not a done deal, but it still seems likely (notwithstanding the Democratic victory in Alabama) that the U.S. House and Senate will agree a joint tax bill to pass before the end of the year. Since the two current bills have only minor differences, it is possible to make some estimates of the macro and sector impacts of the tax reform. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the cuts will reduce government revenue by $1.4 trillion over 10 years - or $1 trillion (5% of GDP) once positive effects on growth are accounted for. The Treasury argues that tax reform (plus deregulation and infrastructure development) will push GDP growth to 2.9% and therefore government revenues will increase by $300 billion. BCA's estimate is that GDP growth will be boosted by 0.2-0.3% in 2018 and 2019.1 For businesses, the key tax changes are: 1) a reduction in the headline corporate rate from 35% to 21%; 2) immediate expensing of capital investment; 3) a limit to deduction of interest expenses to 30% of taxable income; 4) a move to a territorial tax system from a worldwide one, with a 10% tax on repatriation of past profits held overseas; 5) curbs for some deductions, such as R&D, domestic production and tax-loss carry-forwards. Corporate tax cuts will give a one-off boost to earnings, since the effective tax rate is currently over 25% (Chart 9, panel 1), with telecoms, utilities and industrials likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. This is not fully priced into stocks, since companies with high tax rates have seen their stock prices rise only moderately (Chart 9, panel 2). BCA's sector strategists expect that capex will especially be boosted: they estimate that the one-year depreciation increases net present value by 14% (Table 1).2 This should be positive for the Industrials sector (supplying the capital goods) and for Financials (which will see increased demand for loans). We are overweight both. Chart 9Tax Cuts Should Boost Earnings Table 1 Is Bitcoin A Bubble, And What Happens When It Bursts? The recent surge in prices (Chart 10) of virtual currencies has pushed Bitcoin and aggregate cryptocurrency market cap to $275 billion and $500 billion respectively. The recent violent run-up certainly bears a close resemblance to classic bubbles, but the impact of a sharp correction should be minimal on the real economy and traditional capital markets. As mentioned above, the market cap of cryptocurrencies has reached $500 billion. Globally, there is about $6 trillion in currency3 outstanding, so the value of virtual currencies is now 8% that of traditional fiat currency. Additionally, an estimated 1000 people own about 40% of the world's total bitcoin, for an average of about $105 million per person. At the moment, the macro impact has been constrained by the fact that most people are buying bitcoins as a store of value (Chart 11) or vehicle for speculation, rather than as a medium of exchange. However, when the public begins to regard them as legitimate substitutes for traditional fiat currencies, their impact will be felt on the real economy. Chart 10A Classic Bubble Chart 11Bitcoin Trading Volume By Top Three Currencies That would raise the issue of regulation. The U.S. government generates close to $70 billion per year as "seigniorage revenue." Governments across the world have no intention of losing this revenue, and would most likely introduce their own competitors to bitcoin. Until then, the biggest potential impact of these private currencies might be to spur inflation in the fiat currencies in which their prices are measured. That would be bad for government bonds, but potentially good for stocks. A further risk - and a similarity with the real estate bubble of 2007 - is the use of leverage. The news of a Tokyo-based exchange (BitFyler) offering up to 15x leverage for the purchase of bitcoins has spooked investors. However, the U.S. housing market is valued at $29.6 trillion, almost 60 times that of cryptocurrencies. Finally, the 19th century free banking era in the U.S., which at one point saw 8000 different currencies in circulation, experienced multiple banking crises. A world with myriad private currencies all competing with one another would be similarly unstable. Why Did The U.S. Dollar Weaken In 2017, And Where Will It Go In 2018? Chart 12Positioning And Relative Rates Supportive For USD We were wrong to be bullish on U.S. dollar at the start of 2017. We think the dollar weakness during most of the year can be attributed to the fact that investors were massively long the dollar at the end of 2016 (Chart 12, panel 2), which made the market particularly vulnerable to surprises. Several surprises did come: inflation softened in the U.S. but strengthened in the euro area. There were also positive geopolitical surprises in Europe - for example the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election - while the failure to repeal Obamacare in the U.S. raised investors' concerns on the administration's ability to undertake fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. dollar depreciated against euro despite widening interest rate differentials (Chart 12 panel 4) in 2017. Chart 13late Cycle Outperformance Since investors are now aggressively short the dollar, the hurdle for the greenback to deliver positive surprises is much lower than a year ago. Since the Senate passed the Republican tax bill in early December, we have already seen some recovery in the dollar (Chart 12, panel 1). As the labor market continues to firm, with GDP running above potential, U.S. inflation should finally start to pick up in 2018, which will allow the Fed to hike rates, possibly as many as four times during the year. This will contrast with the macro situation overseas: Japan and Europe are likely to continue loose monetary policy to maintain the momentum in their economies. All this should be supportive of the dollar. Are Convertible Bonds Attractive Over The Next 12 Months? With valuations for traditional assets expensive and investors' thirst for yield continuing, the market is in need of alternative sources of return. Convertible bonds offer a hybrid credit/equity exposure, giving investors the option to participate in rising equity markets but with less risk. An allocation to convertibles could prove attractive for the following reasons: Convertible bonds typically outperform high-yield debt in the late stages of bull markets, because of their relatively lower exposure to credit spreads. Junk spreads have a history of starting to widen before equity bear markets begin. Fifty percent of the convertibles index comprises issuance from small-cap and mid-cap firms. Although equity valuations are expensive, prices should continue to rise as long as inflation stays low. Additionally, our U.S. Investment Strategy service thinks that small-cap equities will outperform large caps in the coming months, partly because the likely cuts in U.S. corporate taxes will disproportionately benefit smaller companies. Convertible bonds do appear somewhat cheap relative to equities (Chart 13, panel 3) but, on balance, there is not a strong valuation case for the asset class. Equities appear fairly valued relative to junk bonds, and convertibles are trading at an elevated investment premium. However, valuation is not likely to be a significant headwind to the typical late-cycle outperformance of convertibles versus high yield. biggest near-term risk for convertibles relative to high yield stems from the technology sector, which makes up 35% of the convertibles index. Technology convertible bonds have strongly outperformed their high-yield counterparts in recent months (Chart 13, panel 4), and are possibly due for a period of underperformance. We recommend investors stay cautious on technology convertibles. Other Than U.S. Tips, What Other Inflation-Linked Bonds Do You Like? Our research shows that inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment.4 With our house view of rising inflation in 2018, we have been overweight U.S. Tips over nominal Treasury bonds as the U.S. is the most liquid market for inflation-linked bonds, with a market cap of over US$ 1.2 trillion. Outside the U.S., we favor ILBs in Japan and Australia, while we suggest investors to avoid ILBs in the U.K. and Germany (even though the U.K. linkers' market is the second largest after the U.S.), for the following two key reasons: First, even though inflation is below target in Japan, Australia and the euro area, while above target in the U.K., in all of these markets, inflation has bottomed, as shown in Chart 14. Second, our breakeven fair-value models, which are based on trade-weighted currencies, the Brent oil price in local currencies, and stock-to-bond total-return ratios, indicate that ILBs are undervalued in Japan and Australia, while overvalued in the U.K. and Germany, as shown in Chart 15. Chart 14Inflation Dynamics Chart 15Where to Buy Inflation? The shorter duration (in real terms) of ILBs are an added bonus which fits well with our overall underweight duration positioning in the government bond universe. Global Economy Overview: Growth in developed economies remains strong and there is little in the data to suggest it will slow. This is likely to push up inflation and interest rates, especially in the U.S., over the next six to 12 months. Prospects for emerging markets, however, are less encouraging given that China is likely to slow moderately as it pushes ahead with reforms. U.S.: U.S. growth momentum remains very strong. GDP growth in the past two quarters has come in over 3%, and NowCasts for Q4 point to 2.9-3.9%. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 16, panel 1) has surged since June, and the Manufacturing ISM is at 53.9 and the Non-Manufacturing at 57.4 (panel 2). The worst that can be said is that momentum will be unable to continue at this rate but, with business confidence high, wage growth likely to pick up in 2018, and some positive impacts from tax cuts, no significant slowdown is in sight. Euro Area: Given its stronger cyclicality and ties to the global trade cycle, euro zone growth has surprised on the upside even more strongly than in the U.S. The Manufacturing PMI reached 60.6 in December (its highest level since 2000), and GDP growth in Q3 accelerated to 2.6% QoQ annualized. The euro's strength in 2017 seems to have done little to dent growth, and even weaker members of the euro zone such as Italy have seen improving GDP growth (1.7% in Q3). With the ECB reining back monetary easing only slightly, and banking problems shelved for now, growth should remain resilient in early 2018. Japan: Retail sales saw some weakness in October (-0.2% YoY), probably because of bad weather, but elsewhere data looks robust. Q3 GDP came in at 1.3% QoQ annualized and export growth remains strong at 14% YoY. There are even some signs of life in the domestic economy, with wages finally picking up a little (+0.9% YoY), driven by labor shortages among part-time workers, and consumer confidence at a four-year high. Inflation has been slow to rise, but at least core core inflation (the Bank of Japan's favorite measure) is now in positive territory at +0.2%. Emerging Markets: Chinese credit and monetary series, historically good lead indicators for the real economy, continue to decline (M2 growth in October of 8.8% was the lowest since data started in 1996). But, for now, economic growth has held up, with the Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing PMIs both stably above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). Key will be how much the government's moves to deleverage the financial system and implement structural reform in 2018 will slow growth. Elsewhere in emerging markets, economic growth remains sluggish, with GDP growth in Brazil barely rebounding to 1.4% YoY, Russia to 1.8%, and India slowing to 6.3% (down from over 9% in early 2016). Chart 16Growth Momentum Very Strong Chart 17Will China And EM Slow in 2018? Interest rates: We expect U.S. inflation to pick up in 2018, as the lagged effects of 2017's stronger growth and the weak dollar start to come through, amid higher oil prices and rising wages. We, along with the Fed, expect core PCE inflation to rise to 2% during the year. This means the Fed is likely to raise rates four times, compared to market expectations of twice. Consequently, we see the 10-year Treasury yield over 3% by mid-year. In the euro zone, the still-large output gap means inflation is less likely to surprise on the upside, allowing the ECB to keep negative rates until well into 2019. The Bank of Japan is unlikely to alter its Yield Curve Control, given the signal this would send to the market when inflation expectations are still well below its 2% target (Chart 17, panel 4). Chart 18Equities: Priced for Perfection Global Equities Still Cautiously Optimistic: Our pro-cyclical equity positioning in 2017 worked very well in terms of country allocation (overweight euro zone and Japan in the DM universe) and global sector allocation (favoring cyclicals vs defensives). The two calls that did not pan out were underweight EM equities vs. DM equities, which was partially offset by our positive stance on China within the EM universe, and the overweight of Energy, which was the worst performing sector of the year. The stellar equity performance in 2017 was largely driven by strong earnings growth. Margins improved in both DM and EM; earnings grew in all sectors, and analysts remained upbeat (Chart 18). Another important contributor to 2017 performance was the extraordinary performance of the Tech sector, especially in China: globally, tech returned 41.9%, outperforming the MSCI all country index by 18.9%. GAA's philosophy is to take risk where it is mostly likely be rewarded. In July, we took profits in our Tech overweight and used the funds to upgrade Financials to overweight from neutral. Then in October we started to reduce tracking risk by scaling down our active country bets, closing our overweight in the U.S. to reduce the underweight in EM. BCA's house view is for synchronized global growth to continue in 2018, but a possible recession in late 2019. We are a little concerned that equity markets are priced for perfection, given that our earnings model indicates a deceleration in the coming months mostly due to a base effect. As such, our combination of "close to shore" country allocation and "pro-cyclical" sector allocation is appropriate for the next 9-12 months. Country Allocation: Still Favor DM Over EM Chart 19China: From Tailwind to Headwind for EM ? Our longstanding call of underweight EM vs. DM since December 2013 was gradually reduced in scale, first in March 2016 (to -5 percentage points from -9) and then in October 2017 (further to -2 points). Going forward, investors should continue to maintain this slight underweight position in EM vs. DM. First, our positive stance on China proved to be timely as shown in Chart 19, panel 4, with China outperforming EM by 54.1% since March 2016, and by 18.8% in 2017. Back then our positive stance on China was supported by attractive valuations (bottom panel) and our view that Chinese politics would be supportive for global growth in the run up to the 19th Party Congress. Now BCA's Geopolitical Strategists think that "China politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets".5 In addition, Chinese equities are no longer valued at a discount to the EM average (bottom panel). Second, BCA's currency view is for continued strength in the USD, especially against emerging market currencies. This does not bode well for EM/DM performance in US dollar terms (Chart 19, panel 1). Third, EM money growth leads profit growth by about three months (Chart 19, panel 2). The rolling over in money growth indicates that the currently strong earnings growth may lose steam going forward, while relative valuation is in the fair-value zone (Chart 19, panel 3). Sector Allocation: Stay Overweight Energy Our pro-cyclical sector positioning has worked well in aggregate as the market-cap-weighted cyclical index significantly outperformed the defensive index in 2017. This positioning is also in line with BCA's house view of synchronized global growth and higher inflation expectations, which translates into two major sector themes: capex recovery and rising interest rates. (Please see detailed sector positioning on page 24.) Within the cyclical space, however, the Energy sector did not perform as expected in 2017 (Chart 20). It returned only 3.4%, underperforming the global aggregate by 19.6%. For the next 9-12 months, we recommend investors to stay overweight this underdog of 2017. Chart 20Energy Stocks Lagging Oil Price First, the energy sector is a major beneficiary from a capex recovery. There are already signs of a recovery in basic resources investment in the U.S.6 Second, the energy sector's relative return lagged oil price performance in 2017. Given the generally close correlation between earnings and the oil price, and between analyst earnings revisions and OECD oil inventory growth, earnings in the sector should outpace the broad market. Third, based on price-to-cash earnings, the energy sector is still trading at about a 30% discount to the broad market, and offers a much higher dividend yield (about 1.2 points higher) than the broad market. Even though these discounts are in line with historical averages, they are still supportive of an overweight. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. One important theme for 2018 will be a resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation.7 The implications are that both nominal bond yields and break-even inflation rates will be higher in 2018. We have been underweight duration in government bonds since July 2016. Now with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield at 2.35%, much lower than its fair value of 2.81%, there is considerable upside risk for global bond yields from current low levels. Investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds Maintain Overweight Tips Vs. Treasuries. The base-case forecast from our U.S. bond strategists is that the Tips breakeven rate will rise to 2.4-2.5% as U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target, probably sometime in the middle of 2018. Compared to the current level of 1.87%, 10-yr Tips would have upside of 33-38 bps, an important source of return in the low-return fixed-income space (Chart 21, bottom panel). In terms of relative value, Tips are now slightly cheaper than nominal bonds, also supportive of the overweight stance. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has taken profits in their short Canada vs. U.S. and U.K. tactical position, as the market has become too aggressive in pricing in more rate hikes in Canada. Strategically, however, the underweight of Canada (Chart 22) in a hedged global portfolio is still appropriate because: 1) the output gap has closed in Canada, according to Bank of Canada estimates, and so any additional growth will translate into higher inflation; and 2) the rising CAD will not deter the BoC from more rate hikes if the oil prices remain strong. Chart 21U.S. Bond Yields Have Further To Rise Chart 22Strategic Underweight Canadian Bonds Corporate Bonds Our overweights through most of 2017 on spread product worked well: U.S. investment grade (IG) bonds returned around 290 bps over Treasuries in the year to end-November, and high-yield bonds almost 600 bps. Returns over the next 12 months are unlikely to be as attractive. Spreads (Chart 24) are now close to historic lows: the U.S. IG bond spread, at 90 bps, is only about 30 bps above its all-time record. High-yield valuations look a little more attractive: based on our model of probable defaults over the next 12 months, the default-adjusted spread over U.S. Treasuries is likely to be around 240 bps (Chart 25). In both cases, however, investors should expect little further spread contraction, meaning that credit is now no more than a carry trade. However, in an environment where rates remain fairly low and investors continue to stretch for yield, that pick-up will remain attractive in the absence of a significant turn-down in the economic cycle. The key to watch is the shape of the yield curve. An inverted yield curve in history has been an excellent indictor of the end of the credit cycle. We expect the yield curve to steepen somewhat in H1 2018, before flattening again and then inverting late in the year. Spread product is likely, therefore, to produce decent returns until that point. Thereafter, however, the deterioration of U.S. corporate health over the past three years (Chart 23) could mean a sharp sell-off in corporate bonds. This might be exacerbated by the recent popularity of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs: a small widening of spreads could be magnified by a panicked sell-off in such funds. Chart 23Rising Leverage May Worsen Sell-Off Chart 24Credit Spreads Close To Record Lows Chart 25But Default - Adjusted, Junk Still Looks Attractive Commodities Energy: Bullish Energy prices performed strongly in H2 2017, and we expect bullish sentiment to continue. OPEC 2.0 is likely to maintain production discipline, and will maintain its promised 1.8mm b/d production cuts through the end of 2018. Our estimates for global demand growth are higher than those of other forecasters. This, along with potential unplanned production outages in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela (together accounting for 7.4mm b/d of production at present), drives our above-consensus price forecast of $67 a barrel for Brent crude during 2018. Industrial Metals: Neutral Since China accounts for more than 50% of world base-metal consumption, prices will continue to be highly dependent on developments there. (Chart 26, panel 4). Since the government is trying to accelerate environmental and supply-side reforms, domestic production capacity for base metals will shrink, which will be a positive for global metals prices. However, a focus on deleveraging in the financial sector and restructuring certain industries could slow Chinese GDP growth, reducing base-metal demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold has risen by 12% in 2017, supported by an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with low interest rates. We believe that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and that inflation may rise in the U.S., which would be positives for gold (Chart 26, panel 3). Based on BCA's view that stock market could be at risk from the middle of 2018,8 a moderate gold holding is warranted as a safe-haven asset. However, rising interest rate and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are likely to limit the upside for gold. Currencies USD: The currency is down over 6% on a trade-weighted basis over the past 12 months (Chart 27). Looking into 2018, the USD is likely to perform well in the first half. U.S. inflation should gather steam in the first two to three quarters, and the Fed will be able at least to follow its dot plot - something interest rate markets are not ready for. As investors remain short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar. Chart 26Bullish Oil, Neutral Metals Chart 27Dollar Likely To Appreciate EM/JPY: Carry trades are a key mechanism for redistributing global liquidity, and they have recently begun to lose steam. A crucial reason for this has been the policy tightening in China which has been the key driver of growth in EM economies. Additionally, Japanese flows have been chasing momentum into EM assets. Further tightening in EM could reverse the flows and initiate a flight to safety, favoring the yen relative to EM currencies. CHF: The currency continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair value against the euro. However, after considering Switzerland's net international investment position at 130% of GDP, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value. The CHF will continue to behave as a risk-off currency, and so long as global volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. GBP: Sterling continues to look cheap, trading at an 18% discount to PPP against the USD. However, Brexit remains a key problem. If future immigration is limited, the U.K. will see lower trend growth relative to its neighbors, forcing its equilibrium real neutral rate downward. Consequently, it will be more difficult to finance the current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Until negotiations with the EU come closer to completion, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Alternatives Chart 28Favor Private Equity and Farmland Alternative assets under management (AUM) have reached a record $7.7 trillion in 2017. Lower fees and a broader range of investment types have helped attract more capital. Private equity remains the most popular choice,9 driven by its strong performance and transparency. Many investors have also shifted part of their allocations toward potentially higher-return private debt programs. Return Enhancers: Favor Private Equity Vs. Hedge Funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 12.1%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 5.9% return (Chart 28). We expect private-equity fund-raising to continue into 2018, but with a larger focus on niche strategies with more favorable valuations. Additionally, deploying capital gradually not only provides for vintage-year diversification, but also creates opportunities for investors to benefit from potential market corrections. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds outside of recessions. During a recession, we recommend investors take shelter in hedge funds with a macro mandate. Inflation Hedges: Favor Direct Real Estate Vs. Commodity Futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 5.1%, whereas commodity futures are down over 3.7%. Direct real estate as an asset class continues to provide valuable diversification, lower volatility, steady yields and an illiquidity premium. However, a slowdown in U.S. commercial real estate (CRE) has made us more cautious on the overall asset class. With regards to the commodity complex, the long-term transition of the global economy to a more renewables-focused energy base will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. We continue to stress the structural and long-term nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Volatility Dampeners: Favor Farmland & Timberland Vs. Structured Products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 3.2% and 2.1% respectively, whereas structured products are up 3.7%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland. The slow U.S. housing recovery has added downward pressure to timberland returns. Investors can reduce the volatility of a traditional multi-asset portfolio with inclusion of farm and timber assets. For structured products, low spreads in an environment of tightening commercial real estate lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, warrant an underweight. Risks To Our View We think upside and downside risks to our central scenario for 2018 - slowing but robust economic growth, and continuing moderate outperformance of risk assets - are roughly evenly balanced. On the negative side, perhaps the biggest risk is China, where the slowdown already suggested in the monetary data (Chart 29) could be exacerbated if the government pushes ahead aggressively with structural reforms. Geopolitical risks, which the market over-emphasized in 2017, seem under-estimated now.10 U.S. trade policy, Italian elections, and North Korea all have potential to derail markets. Also, when the U.S. yield curve is as flat as it is currently, small risks can be blown up into big sell-offs. This is particularly so given over-stretched valuations for almost all asset classes. Chart 29China Monetary Conditions Suggest A Slowdown Table 2How Will Trump Try To Influence The Fed? The most likely positive surprise could come from a dovish Fed. New Fed chair Jay Powell is something of an unknown quantity, and the White House could use the three remaining Fed vacancies to push the Fed to keep rates low, so as not to offset the positive effect of the tax cuts. Without these new appointees, the Fed would have a slightly more hawkish bias in 2018 (Table 2). The intellectual argument for hiking only slowly would be, as Janet Yellen said last month: "It can be quite dangerous to allow inflation to drift down and not to achieve over time a central bank's inflation target." The Fed has missed its 2% target for five years. It is possible to imagine a situation where the Fed increasingly makes excuses to keep monetary policy easy (encouraged, for example, by a short-lived sell-off in markets or a slowdown in China) and this causes a late-cycle blow-out, similar to 1999. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Sector Implications," dated December 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 CBNK Survey: Monetary Base, Currency in Circulation. Source: IMF - International Financial Statistics. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Two Virtuous Dollar Circles," dated October 28, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated 20 November 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Source: BNY Mellon - The Race For Assets; Alternative Investments Surge Ahead. 10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. GAA Asset Allocation

Overweight Anecdotal evidence of a strong recovery in holiday shopping, not least of which is Amazon's guidance of 28-38% growth in the December quarter, should see retailers in festive moods. However, with online sales set to overtake in-store for the first time this year, a round of intense discounting is the most likely outcome. While this points to an uncertain margin result for retailers, consumer finance stocks are unambiguous beneficiaries. Household net worth has been surging this year and now easily exceeds pre-GFC levels (second panel). This has led to steady acceleration in consumer finance sales expectations and sustained low delinquencies (third panel). Tack on rising interest rates (as a reminder, BCA's bond view calls for higher rates in 2018) and the stage is set for well above average earnings growth. Only some of the good news is reflected in the index's valuation, which has returned to average levels, trading at a normal premium to the broad market (bottom panel). We think the superior earnings tailwind justifies a more aggressive valuation; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P consumer finance index are: BLBG: S5CFINX-AXP, COF, DFS, SYF, NAVI.

Highlights Overweighting Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 is just a sector play - you must believe that banks are going to outperform technology. It is categorically not a relative economic growth or relative valuation play. The best expression of euro area economic outperformance - as we believe is likely - is not through mainstream equity indexes. It is through the euro. Could Spain in 2014-17 be Italy in 2018-21? If so, the cleanest play is through Italian bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. Play the lottery for free: when the price gap between the second and first month VIX future is greater than that between the first month and VIX spot - as it is now - it signals a potentially free lottery ticket. Feature Don't Play The Euro Area Economy Through The Stock Market The fallacy of division is a logical fallacy. It occurs when somebody falsely infers that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts that make up the whole. For example, somebody might see that their computer screen appears purple, and infer that the pixels that make up the screen are also purple. In fact, pixels are never purple. They are either red or blue. The fallacy of division is that the property of the whole - purpleness - does not translate to the property of the parts - redness or blueness. Chart of the WeekEuro Area Vs. U.S. Equities Is Just A Sector Play: Banks Vs. Technology The fallacy of division also affects investors. Since global equities are a play on the global economy, some investors infer that major equity indexes such as the Eurostoxx50 are relative plays on their regional economies. In fact, this is a fallacy of division: the property of the equity market as a global aggregate does not translate to the relative property of an equity market as a regional or national part. Through the past three years, the euro area economy has comfortably outperformed the U.S. economy1 (Chart I-2). Yet the Eurostoxx50 has substantially underperformed the S&P500 (Chart I-3). Why? Because the Eurostoxx50 has a major 14% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to technology. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 24% weighting to technology. Chart I-2The Euro Area Economy ##br##Has Outperformed... Chart I-3...But The Eurostoxx50 ##br##Has Underperformed Hence, for the Eurostoxx50 the distinguishing property is 'bank'; for the S&P500 it is 'technology'. And as banks have underperformed technology, the Eurostoxx50 has underperformed the S&P500. This large difference in sector exposure also means that a head-to-head comparison of equity market valuation is misleading. The euro area, trading on a forward price to earnings (PE) multiple of 15, appears considerably cheaper than the U.S., trading on a forward PE of 19. But this head-to-head difference just reflects the forward PEs of banks at 11 and technology at 19. As banks will likely generate less long-term growth than technology, banks are rightfully cheaper than technology and the Eurostoxx50 is rightfully cheaper than the S&P500. Some people suggest sector-adjusting stock market valuations to allow for the sector biases. The problem is that this suggestion cannot avoid the inescapable end-result. The bank-heavy Eurostoxx50 versus the tech-heavy S&P500 relative performance will still depend on banks versus technology (Chart of the Week). Remarkably, this overarching driver is captured in just the three largest euro area banks versus the three largest U.S. tech stocks. This means that relative performance simply reduces to whether Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING outperform Apple, Microsoft and Google,2 or vice-versa (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Reduces To: Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Everything else is largely irrelevant. Hence, the counterintuitive conclusion is that overweight Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 is actually a sector play. You must hold the view that banks are going to outperform technology. At the moment, we are agnostic on this view. The best expression of euro area economic outperformance - as we believe is likely - is not through mainstream equity indexes. It is through bond yield spread compression and through exchange rates. Our preferred expression is structurally long EUR/USD. Could Spain In 2014-17 Be Italy In 2018-21? In 2013, Spain seemed to be on its knees. The economy had slumped by almost 10%, unemployment stood at 27%, and the stock of bank loans which were non-performing exceeded 13%. Doomsayers abounded. Standard and Poor's downgraded Spain's sovereign credit rating to BBB-, one notch above junk, and esteemed Wall Street strategists predicted the unemployment rate would remain above 25% for the rest of the decade. But the esteemed strategists were completely wrong. Through 2014-17, Spanish real GDP per head has grown by almost 15% (Chart I-5) - making it one of the top performing developed economies; unemployment has plunged by 10% (Chart I-6); and non-performing loans have declined sharply. What suddenly transformed Spain from zero to hero? The answer is that Spain recapitalised its banks. Chart I-5Through 2014-17 Spanish Real GDP ##br##Per Head Is Up Almost 15%... Chart I-6...And Unemployment##br## Is Down 10% After a financial crisis, the golden rule of recovery is to repair the banking system as soon as possible. In the aftermath of housing-related banking crises in 2008, the U.S. and U.K. quickly recapitalised their damaged banking systems; Ireland followed a couple of years later; Spain waited until 2013. But in each case, the economies rebounded very strongly as soon as the banks' aggressive deleveraging ended. Which brings us to Italy. Many people claim that Italy's long-standing economic underperformance is due to deep-seated structural problems. We do not dispute that such problems exist, but they cannot be the main cause of the economic underperformance. After all, through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the U.S., Canada and France (Chart I-7), even without a private sector credit boom which the other economies had. Italy's underperformance really started after the 2008 financial crisis. And the most plausible explanation is that its dysfunctional banking system has been left broken for so long. Italy has procrastinated because its government is more indebted than other sovereigns and its banking problems have not caused an outright crisis - yet. But now policymakers in Rome, Brussels and Frankfurt realise that a hamstrung economy carries risks of a populist backlash against the European project. Finally, Italian banks' equity capital is rising, their solvency is improving and the share of non-performing loans appears to have peaked at the same level as in Spain in 2013 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Through 1999-2007 Italy Performed In##br## Line With Other Major Economies Chart I-8Spanish NPLs Peaked In 2013, ##br##Italian NPLs Are Peaking Now So could Spain in 2014-17 be Italy in 2018-21? Once again, doomsayers abound and the counterintuitive thought could pay off. The cleanest way to play this is through Italian bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. Play The Lottery For Free As everybody knows, playing the lottery is not a good investment strategy. Most of the time your Lotto ticket brings zero reward, though occasionally you do win a prize. In fact, the U.K. National Lottery has said that the expected win per £1 played averages £0.47. Meaning the long-term return on this strategy is -53%. In the financial markets, the equivalent of a Lotto ticket is to buy volatility. In practice, this means buying a future on a volatility index such as the VIX. The problem is that the VIX futures curve usually slopes upwards. So if the curve doesn't change, a future bought above the spot price loses value when it expires at the spot price (Chart I-9). The upshot is that most of the time, the future 'rolls down the curve', and you lose money, though occasionally when volatility spikes you win. But counterintuitively, sometimes you can play the lottery for free. Look at the VIX futures curve: when the price gap between the second and first month is greater than that between the first month and spot - as it is now (Chart I-10) - it signals a potentially free lottery ticket. Chart I-9VIX Futures "Roll Down The Curve" Chart I-10Spotting A Free Lottery Ticket Under these circumstances, the strategy is to go long the first month future and short the second month future. If the futures curve stays broadly as it is - and both futures contracts roll down the curve - the loss on the first month long position will be made up by the gain on the second month short position. Effectively, the combined position becomes costless. Yet this potentially costless position is still playing the lottery. Because if volatility does spike, the volatility futures curve tends to invert sharply (go into backwardation). Hence, the gain on the first month long position substantially outweighs the loss on the second month short position. Now might be a good time to play the lottery for free. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 On a real GDP per capita basis. 2 Listed as Alphabet. Fractal Trading Model* Silver's 65-day fractal dimension is at a level which has previously indicated four tradeable trend reversals. Go long silver with a profit target / stop-loss of 4.5% In other trades, we are pleased to report that short basic materials versus market and short copper / long tin both hit their respective profit targets. This leaves us with six open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. The risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to intervene aggressively to limit the rise. We recommend that investors stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade, for now. A breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely be a sufficient basis to close the trade at a healthy profit. Feature We last wrote about Taiwan in February of this year,1 when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Our long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade has generated an impressive 19% return since its inception in February. The trade has become significantly overbought, but we recommend that investors stick with it, for now. A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. The Taiwanese Economy In 2017: What Has Changed? Real GDP growth in Taiwan has generally trended sideways in 2017, decelerating in the first half of the year and then recovering in the third quarter (Chart 1). While these fluctuations in its growth profile have been somewhat muted, overall GDP growth has masked a sizeable divergence between domestic demand and export growth. Taiwan is a highly trade-oriented economy, with exports of goods & services accounting for nearly 65% for its GDP, and a recent acceleration in real export volume has positively contributed to overall growth. Over 50% of Taiwan's exports are tech-based, and Chart 1 panel 2 highlights the close link between global semiconductor sales (which have risen sharply over the past year) and Taiwanese nominal exports. But as Chart 1 panel 3 shows, growth in real domestic demand has fallen back into contractionary territory, driven largely by a sharp decline in gross fixed capital formation. This decline in investment is somewhat surprising, given the close historical relationship between Taiwan's real exports and investment (Chart 2, panel 1). But the sharp drop may have been a lagged response to the export shock that occurred during the synchronized global growth slowdown in 2015, as it led to a non-trivial accumulation of inventory (Chart 2, panel 2). The recent acceleration of export growth and a renewed draw in inventories suggests that the severe pullback in investment is likely to reverse in the coming year. Chart 1A Divergence Between Domestic Demand##br## And Exports Chart 2Investment Likely To Rebound Over ##br##The Coming Year The evolution of Taiwanese capital goods imports is likely to provide an important confirming signal about the trend in real investment, given the close historical correlation between the two series. For now, the growth in capital goods imports is rebounding from negative territory (Chart 3), which is consistent with the view that investment is set to recover. Finally, while real consumer spending growth also decelerated in the first half of the year, the acceleration in Q3 has brought consumption back to its 5-year moving average. More importantly, Chart 4 highlights that the consumer confidence index in Taiwan is closely correlated with real spending, with the former heralding a rise in the latter over the coming months. Chart 3Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Chart 4Consumption Also Set To Improve Bottom Line: Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The Taiwanese Dollar: Driven By Flows, Not Fundamentals Taiwanese stock prices have underperformed Greater China bourses since the beginning of the year (Chart 5), despite the recent improvement in real export growth and signs of an impending improvement in domestic demand. To us, this underperformance has been largely caused by the strength in the Taiwanese currency. The Taiwanese dollar has appreciated since early-2016, both against the U.S. dollar and in trade-weighted terms (Chart 6). Although the currency retreated from May to August of this year, it has since resumed its uptrend and currently stands between 8-9% higher than last year's low in trade-weighted terms. Chart 5Significant Underperformance Of ##br##Taiwan Vs Greater China Chart 6Material Currency Appreciation##br## Since Early-2016 Crucially, Chart 7 highlights that the rise in the TWD cannot be explained by relative monetary policy or by an improvement in the terms of trade. The chart shows how the USD/TWD began to decouple from the relative 2-year swap rate spread in early-2016, and how the trend in Taiwan's export price index has been negatively correlated with the trade-weighted exchange rate. The best explanation for the recent strength in Taiwan's currency appears to be a surge in capital inflows oriented towards Taiwan's equity market (Chart 8). Foreign ownership of Taiwanese stocks has increased significantly over the past few years and is currently at a record high of 43%. Given that Taiwan's equity market is enormously tech-focused, it appears that global investors have been attracted to Taiwanese stocks as part of a play on the global tech rally. As we will discuss below, this has become somewhat of a self-defeating strategy, at least in terms of Taiwan's relative performance vs Greater China bourses. While it is possible that monetary authorities will attempt to combat the appreciation of the Taiwanese dollar, Chart 9 highlights that there is little room to maneuver. First, Taiwan's policy rate of 1.375% is already extremely low, and is only 12.5 bps above the level that prevailed during the worst of the global financial crisis. Second, panels 2 and 3 suggests that while past central bank intervention was successful at depreciating the TWD, monetary authorities also seem reluctant to allow Taiwan to be labeled as a currency manipulator. Our proxy for central bank intervention is the rolling 3-month average daily depreciation in TWD/USD in the first 30 minutes of aftermarket trading, a period that the central bank has historically used to intervene in the foreign exchange market. The chart shows that periods of intervention have been associated with a subsequent decline in TWD/USD, but that intervention durably ended once Taiwan was added to the U.S. Treasury's watch list of potential currency manipulators (first vertical line). Taiwan was removed from the watch list in October of this year (second vertical line), after central bank intervention ceased. Chart 7Currency Strength Not Supported ##br##By Fundamentals Chart 8Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows##br## Are Pushing Up The TWD Chart 9Little Room For Policy ##br##To Push Down The Exchange Rate Bottom Line: The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. While there is scope for further central bank intervention to help depreciate the currency, the risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to act. The Relative Outlook For Taiwanese Equities Table 1 presents a simple performance attribution analysis for Taiwan's year-to-date stock returns relative to Greater China bourses,2 in an attempt to answer the following question: Has Taiwan underperformed because it is underweight sectors that have outperformed, or because its highly-weighted sectors underperformed? To test this question we calculate a "hypothetical" return for the Taiwanese stock market, which shows what would have occurred if Taiwan's tech and ex-tech sectors had earned the benchmark return instead of their own. Table 1Taiwan's Poor Performance This Year Is Due To Its Tech Sector The table clearly shows that Taiwan would have substantially outperformed Greater China in this hypothetical scenario, underscoring that its sector weighting is not the source of the underperformance. While both Taiwan's tech and ex-tech indexes underperformed those of Greater China, it is apparent that most of the gap in performance can be linked to Taiwan's tech sector. Tech accounts for roughly 60% of Taiwan's equity market capitalization, and the sector significantly underperformed Greater China tech this year. Chart 10 highlights that Taiwan's tech sector underperformance is significantly explained by the rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted currency. Panels 2 & 3 of the chart shows Taiwan's rolling 1-year tech sector beta and alpha vs Greater China tech, both compared with the (inverted) year-over-year percent change in the trade-weighted exchange rate. Here, we define alpha using Jensen's measure, which is the difference between Taiwan's tech sector price return and what would have been expected given its beta and Greater China's tech sector performance. The chart clearly shows that the sharp rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate caused both a decline in Taiwan's tech sector beta (from a historical average of about 1) as well as a significantly negative alpha over the past year. Chart 10, in combination with the currency-driven downtrend in Taiwan's export prices shown in Chart 7, suggests that Taiwan's equity market has suffered in relative terms due to the outsized appreciation in its currency. This is somewhat ironic, as we noted above that the currency appreciation itself appears to be caused by capital inflow oriented towards Taiwan's tech sector, meaning that global investors have inadvertently contributed to Taiwan's equity market underperformance relative to Greater China bourses. Looking forward, there are cross-currents affecting the outlook for Taiwanese stock prices. Chart 11 shows that technical conditions and relative valuation argue against maintaining an underweight stance; Taiwanese stocks are heavily oversold vs Greater China, and have de-rated in relative terms since the beginning of the year. Taiwanese tech in particular is quite cheap in relative terms. In addition, panel 1 of Chart 10 suggests that Taiwanese tech (in relative terms) may have undershot the appreciation in the currency. Chart 10Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Chart 11Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual However, Taiwan's tech sector is mostly made up of the semiconductors & semiconductor equipment industry group, and there are signs that the growth rate in global semiconductor sales is in the process of peaking. Chart 12 illustrates the close correlation between the growth of global semi sales and Taiwan's absolute 12-month forward earnings per share, with the recent gap likely having occurred due to the currency impact noted above. The chart suggests that earnings expectations for Taiwan are highly unlikely to accelerate if semi sales growth slows, meaning that Taiwanese stocks, particularly the tech sector, currently lack a catalyst to re-rate. Chart12Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst From our perspective, a lasting depreciation in the currency appears to be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating, as it would increase the odds that the relationship shown in Chart 10 would durably recouple. Until then, any exogenous rebound in relative tech sector performance is likely to be met with a self-limiting TWD appreciation. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors, for now, stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade. However, a breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely cause us to close the trade, and upgrade Taiwanese stocks to at least neutral within a greater China equity portfolio. Stay tuned. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Assistant linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan's 'Trump' Risk", dated February 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use MSCI's Golden Dragon index to represent Greater China, which includes China investable, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese stocks. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The stellar performance in metals over the past year resulted from a combination of favorable demand- and supply-side developments, propelled along, as always, by China's outsized effect on fundamentals. On the demand side, robust global growth is keeping metals consumption strong. On the supply side, environmental reforms in China and the shuttering of mills - as well as supply-side shocks in individual markets - continues to bolster prices. A weak U.S. dollar - which lost 6% of its value in broad trade-weighted terms - further supports these bullish conditions for metal markets. We expect China's winter supply cuts to dominate 1Q18 market fundamentals. As we move toward mid-year, we expect a soft and controlled slowdown in China, brought about by the Communist Party's goals of reducing industrial pollution and pivoting toward consumer-led growth. Although this will moderate demand from the world's top metal consumer, strong growth from the rest of the world will neutralize the impact of this slowdown. Energy: Overweight. Pipeline cracks in the critical Forties system in the North Sea highlight the unplanned-outage risk to oil prices we flagged in recent reports. We remain long Brent and WTI $55/bbl vs. $60/bbl call spreads in 2018, which are up an average of 47%, respectively, since they were recommended in September and October 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Following a strong 1Q18, a moderate slowdown in China will be offset by growth in the rest of the world (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to recommend gold as a strategic portfolio hedge, even though we expect as many as three additional Fed rate hikes next year. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The U.S. undersecretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs warned farmers this week they "need to have a backup plan in the event the U.S. exits the North American Free Trade Agreement," in an interview with agriculture.com's Successful Farming. No specifics were offered. Canada and Mexico - the U.S.'s NAFTA partners - are expected to account for $21 billon and $19 billion of exports, respectively, based on USDA estimates for FY 2018. These exports largely offset imports of $22 billion and $23 billion, respectively, from both countries. The U.S. runs an ag trade surplus of ~ $23.5 billion annually. Feature Metals had another extraordinary year in 2017. The LME base metal index rallied more than 20% year-to-date (ytd) bringing the index up more than 50% since it bottomed in mid-January 2016 (Chart Of The Week). Chart of the WeekA Great Year For Metals Steel, zinc, copper, and aluminum led the gains. In fact, of the metals we track, iron ore is the only one in negative territory - having lost almost 8% ytd. Nonetheless, it has been on the uptrend recently - gaining ~ 24% since it bottomed at the end of October. Capacity reductions in China, where policymakers mandated inefficient and highly polluting mills and smelters in steel- and aluminum-producing provinces be taken offline, continue to affect the supply side in those metals most. As China churns out less of these commodities, competition for the more limited supply will pull prices for them higher. Nevertheless, a stronger USD - brought about by a more hawkish Fed - likely will cap significant upside gains, and prevent a repeat of this year's exceptional performance. Strong Global Demand Will Neutralize China Slowdown The Chinese economy is beginning to show signs of a slowdown. The Li Keqiang Index - a proxy for China's economic activity - has rolled over. Furthermore, the manufacturing PMI has plateaued following last year's rapid ascent (Chart 2). This deceleration is also evident in China's infrastructure data. Annual growth in infrastructure spending in the first three quarters of the year are below the four-year average. And, although spending grew 15.9% year-on-year (yoy) in the first 10 months of this year, the rate of growth is slower than the four-year average of 19.6% (Chart 3). Chart 2A China Slowdown Is In The Cards... Chart 3...Threatening A Pull Back In Metals Demand That said, it is important to point out that this is due to a significant decline in utilities spending growth, which accounts for ~ 20% of infrastructure investments. Investment in utilities grew a mere 2.3% in the first ten months of the year, in contrast with the average 15.7% yoy increase of the previous four years. In any case, the slowdown in China's reflation reflects President Xi Jinping's resolve to shift gears and emphasize quality over quantity in future growth strategies. Now that Xi has consolidated his power, we expect policymakers to build on the momentum from the National Communist Party Congress, and be more effective in implementing reforms going forward. As such, Beijing should be more willing to tolerate slower growth than it has in the past. Nonetheless, we do not anticipate a significant slowdown. More likely than not, policymakers will resort to fiscal stimulus if the economy is faced with notable risks. Consequently, a hard landing in China is not our base case scenario. In any case, strong global demand will neutralize a slowdown in China's metal consumption in 2018. Despite a deceleration in China, the IMF expects global growth to pick up in 2018 (Table 1). The Global PMI is at its highest level since early 2011, supported by strong readings in the Euro Area and the U.S. (Chart 4). In all likelihood, conditions for global metal demand will remain favorable in 2018. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts Chart 4Strong Global Demand Will Neutralize##BR##Impact Of China Slowdown China Real Estate Will Slow; Major Downturn Not Expected Chart 5Slowing Real Estate Investment Is A Mild Risk We do not foresee significant risks to China's real estate market, which is the big driver of base-metals demand in that economy. Total real estate investment is up 7.8% in the first 10 months of the year - the strongest growth for the period since 2014 (Chart 5). Even so, it is important to note the slowdown in that sector. After growing 9% yoy in 1Q17, growth rates fell to 8% and 7% in 2Q and 3Q17, respectively. In fact, growth in October, the latest month for which data are available, came in at 5.6% yoy - significantly slower than the average monthly yoy rate of 8% in the first nine months of the year. The slowdown in floor-space-started is more pronounced. The area of floor space started grew 5% in the first 10 months of the year, down from an 8% expansion in the same period in 2016. October data showed a yoy as well as month-on-month contraction - 4.2% for the former, and 12.1% for the latter. This is the second yoy contraction in 2017, with July experiencing a 4.9% reduction in floor area started. Similarly, quarterly data shows a significant slowdown from almost 12% yoy growth rates registered in 4Q16 and 1Q17 to the mere 0.4% yoy growth in 3Q17. In addition, the growth rate in commodity building floor-space-under-construction has slowed down to 3.1% yoy in the first 10 months of 2017, down from almost 5% for the same period in the previous two years. Although the data are a reflection of Xi's resolve to tighten control of the real estate market, we do not expect a major downturn that will weigh on metal demand. As BCA Research's China Investment Strategy desk notes, strong demand in the real estate sector, coupled with declining inventories, will prevent a major slowdown in construction activity, even in face of tighter policies.1 A Stronger Dollar Moderates Upside Price Pressures In our modeling of the LME Base Metal Index, we find that currency movements are important determinants of the evolution of metals prices. More specifically, the U.S. dollar is inversely related to the LME base metal index. While U.S. inflation has remained stubbornly low, we expect inflation to start its ascent sometime before mid-2018, allowing the Fed to proceed with its rate-hiking cycle. Given our view that too few hikes are currently priced in for 2018, there remains some upside to the USD. Thus, while dollar weakness has been supportive for metal prices in 2017, a stronger dollar will be a headwind in 2018. A Look At The Fundamentals In terms of supply/demand dynamics in individual metal markets, idiosyncrasies in their current states, and variations in how China's environmental reforms manifest themselves will mean the different metals will follow different trajectories next year. Muted Consumption Mitigated Impact Of Supply Disruptions In Copper Copper production had a bumpy 2017, rocked by sporadic supply disruptions in some of the world's top mines.2 This led to a contraction in world refined production ex-China, which was offset by an increase in Chinese output (Chart 6). Although Chinese refined copper output grew a healthy 6% yoy in the first three quarters, this was nonetheless a slowdown from the 8% yoy expansion for the same period in 2016. Even so, increased Chinese copper production more than offset declines from other top producers. Refined copper production in the rest of the world contracted by 1.5% in the first three quarters, bringing world production growth to 1.3% - significantly slower than the average 2.6% yoy increase witnessed in the same period in the previous two years. The supply-side impact on the overall market was mitigated by a slowdown in consumption. Chinese consumption, which accounts for 50% of global refined copper demand, remained largely unchanged in the first three quarters of the year compared to last year. This follows a yoy increase of ~ 8% in Chinese demand vs. the same period in 2016. Demand from the rest of the world contracted by 0.6% yoy, down from a 2.5% yoy expansion in the same period last year. So, despite supply disruptions, the copper market remained balanced - registering a 20k MT surplus in the first three quarters of this year, following a 230k MT deficit in the same period in 2016. Recently, there is news of capacity cuts in Anhui province - where China's second-largest copper smelter will be eliminating 20 to 30% of its capacity during the winter.3 If the copper market is the next victim of China's environmental reforms, global balances may be pushed to a deficit. Although copper remains well stocked at the major warehouses, an adoption of these winter cuts by other copper producing provinces would weaken refined copper supply and support prices (Chart 7). Chart 6Copper Rallied On Back Of Supply-Side Fears Chart 7Copper Warehouses Are Well Stocked Steel Prices Will Remain Elevated Throughout Q1 China's steel sector has undergone significant reforms this year. In addition to the 100-150 mm MT of capacity cuts to be implemented between 2016 and 2020, Beijing has also eliminated steel produced by intermediate frequency furnaces (IFF).4 Even so, Chinese steel production - paradoxically - is at record highs. This comes down to the nature of IFFs, which are illegal and thus not reflected in official crude steel production data. However, growth in steel products - which reflect output from both official as well as illegal steel mills - has been flat (Chart 8). In addition, China's steel exports have come down significantly since last year, reflecting a domestic shortage in the steel industry. November data shows a 34% yoy contraction, and exports for the first 11 months of the year are down more than 30% from the same period last year. We expect Chinese steel production to remain anemic until the end of 1Q18, as mandated winter capacity cuts cap production in major steel-producing provinces. The near-term cutback in production will keep steel prices elevated. The spread between steel and iron ore prices during this period will remain wide as lower steel production translates into muted demand for the ore. This is also consistent with China's inventory data which shows that after falling since August, iron ore stocks have been building up since mid-October - in conjunction with the start of winter steel-capacity cuts. Indonesian Nickel Exports Bearish In Long Run, Not So Much In Near Term Ever since Indonesia's ban on nickel ore exports in 2014, worldwide production has been on the downtrend. In the previous two years, shrinking supply from China - which makes up about a quarter of global output - was the culprit of reduced world output, offsetting increases from the rest of the globe, and causing global production to contract by 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively (Chart 9). Chart 8Falling Exports And Flat Steel Products##BR##Output Reflect Closures In Steel Chart 9Deficit And Inventory##BR##Drawdowns Dominate Nickel... However, at 2.5%, the contraction in global output is significantly larger for the first three quarters of this year. What is noteworthy is that it is caused by shrinking production both from China - down ~ 7.5% - as well as from the rest of the world, where output is down ~ 1%. Nevertheless, a decline in demand from China - which accounts for almost half of global consumption - has softened the impact of withering production. Chinese demand for semi refined nickel shrunk 22% in the first three quarters of the year, more than offsetting the 9% growth in demand from the rest of the world. However, there has been a recovery in global demand since June. A 15% yoy growth in the third quarter from consumers ex-China drove a 5% yoy gain in global growth. Despite weak demand in 1H17, the nickel market recorded a deficit in the first three quarters of the year. In fact, nickel has been in deficit for the past two years. Going forward, Indonesia's gradual lifting of the export ban will prop up production. In fact, global yoy production growth has been in the green since June. However, while Indonesian ores are slowly returning to the global market, they remain a fraction of their pre-ban levels. Thus, prices will likely remain under upside pressure in the near term. Record Deficit And Significant Inventory Drawdowns Dominate Aluminum... Aluminum has been in deficit for the past three years. In fact, at 100k MT, the deficit in the first three quarters of 2017 is the largest on record for that period. This is reflected in LME inventory data which has been experiencing drawdowns since April 2014 - Falling from more than 5mm MT to ~ 1mm MT (Chart 10). Strong growth from Chinese producers - which account for more than half the world's primary production - kept global output growth strong, despite a decline from other top producers. However, falling Chinese production in August and September compounded the fall in output from the rest of the world, leading to a 3.5% yoy decline for those two months. In fact, September's Chinese output data marks the lowest production figure since February 2016. On the demand side, global consumption is up 6.2% yoy in the first seven months of 2017, reflecting a general uptrend in both Chinese consumption and, to a lesser extent, a greater appetite for the metal from the rest of the world. However, there has been some weakness from China recently. Chinese demand contracted by 2.9% and 9.6% yoy in August and September. While an 8.2% yoy increase in consumption from the rest of the world offset the August weakness from China, global demand shrunk by 5.8% in September. As with steel, supply-side reforms will dominate and keep aluminum prices elevated in the near term. ... Along With Zinc Demand Global zinc production has been more or less flat this year. The 2.7% decline from Chinese producers, which supply 46% of global zinc slab, was offset by a 2.4% increase in production from the rest of the world. On the demand side, although Chinese consumption - which accounts for almost half of global zinc slab demand - has been flat, strength from the rest of the world supported global demand, which is up 2.3% yoy for the first three quarters of the year (Chart 11). Chart 10...As Well As Aluminum... Chart 11...And Zinc Static supply coupled with increased demand has led the zinc market to a deficit of 500k MT - a record for the first three quarters of 2017. The deficit has continued to eat up zinc stocks, which have been in free-fall, since early 2013.   Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Chinese Real Estate: Which Way Will The Wind Blow?," dated September 28, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated August 24, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Chinese Copper Smelter Halts Capacity to Ease Winter Pollution," published on December 7, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Slow-Down in China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore in 2018,' dated September 7, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Overweight The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released data earlier this week showing that global arms sales (as measured by the revenues of the largest 100 defense companies) had arrested their 6-year long decline last year, rising by 1.9%. The key driver appears to be Lockheed Martin (LMT), which saw rising sales for the international F-35 program and also purchased helicopter producer Sikorsky, thus cementing its position as the number one defense firm. Importantly, 2016 saw arms sales for South Korean companies surge by 20.6% in response to the rising tensions on the Korean peninsula, both to meet domestic demand and for international exports. There are two implications from this statistic: first, rising South Korean arms production means overall demand is increasing and second, defense demand is becoming heterogeneous. In conjunction with growth in domestic armed forces (second panel), the demand environment for U.S. defense firms remains bright and while valuations are lofty on a P/E and P/CF basis, they are not out of line with the broad market measured by EV/EBITDA (third panel); stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA Defense index are: LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL.

Highlights Yield Curve & Fed: The yield curve will not invert until inflation has first recovered to the Fed's target. This means that a period of curve steepening is likely, driven either by rising inflation or a more dovish Fed. Corporate Sectors: Expect less extra compensation from increasing the riskiness of corporate bond portfolios in 2018. The Energy, Communications, Basic Industry, Financial and Technology sectors offer the best risk-adjusted value. Economy & Inflation: All signs are that economic growth has accelerated in recent months. Decelerating consumer credit growth and rising consumer delinquency rates do not yet pose a risk to future spending. Feature Long-term interest rates have trended lower in recent months even as the Federal Reserve has raised the level of the target federal funds rate by 150 basis points. This development contrasts with most experience, which suggests that, other things being equal, increasing short-term interest rates are normally accompanied by a rise in longer-term yields. [...] The broadly anticipated behavior of world bond markets remains a conundrum. - Alan Greenspan, February 20051 By the end of the week the Fed will have raised interest rates by 125 basis points since December 2015, yet the 10-year Treasury yield has risen only 7 bps (Chart 1). But unlike in 2005, there is no bond conundrum. On the contrary, the reason for low long-maturity Treasury yields is easily understood. Chart 1What Conundrum? Quite simply, the Federal Reserve has been lifting interest rates in-line with its projections for rising inflation, but markets are trading off the fact that this inflation has yet to materialize. The compensation for inflation protection embedded in 10-year yields is only 1.88%. Historically, when core inflation is close to the Fed's 2% target, compensation for inflation protection has traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. Essentially, Fed rate hikes have lifted short-maturity yields but low inflation is keeping long-maturity yields depressed. The result is that the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened all the way down to 58 bps from 128 bps in December 2015 (Chart 1, bottom panel). What should be clear is that the current paths of inflation and the yield curve are unsustainable. If the Fed continues to hike rates but inflation fails to rise, then the yield curve will invert in the coming months - a signal that bond investors anticipate a recession - and the Fed will have not achieved its inflation target. Such an obvious policy error will not be permitted to occur, which leaves us with three possible outcomes for Fed policy and the Treasury curve during the next six months. 1) The Fed Is Right In this scenario inflation starts to rebound in the coming months, pushing the compensation for inflation protection embedded in long-dated bond yields higher (Chart 2). This would certainly cause long-maturity nominal yields to increase and would probably impart a steepening bias to the yield curve, depending on how quickly the Fed lifts rates.2 BCA's Outlook for 2018 makes the case for why inflation is likely to bottom in the coming months, and we view the "Fed is Right" scenario as the most likely outcome.3 Chart 2Fed Expects Higher Inflation 2) The Fed Is Proactive In this scenario the Fed recognizes there is a risk of tightening the yield curve into inversion - and the economy into recession - if inflation stays low. It therefore proactively adopts a more dovish policy stance to prevent the yield curve from inverting. The likely first step would be signaling a slower pace of rate hikes in this week's Summary of Economic Projections. The yield curve would also steepen in this scenario, but this time a bull-steepening where short-maturity yields fall more than long-maturity yields. At least one FOMC member already seems worried enough to take this sort of action. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said two weeks ago that: "Given below-target U.S. inflation, it is unnecessary to push normalization to such an extent that the yield curve inverts".4 But other policymakers are less concerned. Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester downplayed the flat yield curve in a recent interview.5 We view this outcome as the least likely of our three scenarios. With economic growth accelerating (see Economy & Inflation section below), the Fed will likely cling to its forecast that inflation will move higher. If inflation fails to respond, then risky assets will eventually sell off. This brings us to the final scenario. 3) The Fed Is Reactive The Fed does not have a strong track record of proactively responding to low inflation readings, but it does have a strong track record of reacting to tighter financial conditions and risk off periods in equities and credit markets. What's more, if the yield curve continues to flatten, then we are very likely to see credit spreads widen and equities sell off quite soon. At that point the Fed would almost certainly respond by signaling a slower pace of rate hikes. That would steepen the curve and ease the pressure on risky assets. We view this third scenario as more likely than the one where the Fed is proactive. In fact, we observe that the yield curve is already flat enough that the chances of a sell-off in High-Yield corporate bonds relative to Treasuries are high. Using monthly data going back to 1988, we see that a flatter 2/10 Treasury slope is consistent with lower monthly excess returns from High-Yield (Chart 3). We also see that a flatter yield curve is consistent with more frequent risk-off periods (Chart 4). Chart 3Junk Monthly Excess Returns & ##br##Yield Curve (1988-Present) Chart 4% Of Months With Negative High-Yield ##br##Excess Returns (1988- Present) This makes sense intuitively. An inverted yield curve is a well-known recession indicator. This means that when the yield curve is very flat investors are obviously nervous that any new piece of bad news could tip the curve into inversion and signal an end to the economic recovery. In other words, a risk-off episode in junk bonds, like the one witnessed in early November, would be less likely to occur if the yield curve were steeper.6 We would recommend buying the dips on any near-term correction in junk bonds, because the Fed would then be forced to get more dovish and support the credit markets. But unless inflation returns and steepens the Treasury curve from current levels, the risk of just such an episode is high. Corporate Sector Year-In-Review With 2017 nearly in the books, this week we take a quick look back at the performance of the 10 main investment grade corporate bond sectors during the year. Chart 5 shows the excess return for each sector relative to its duration-times-spread (DTS) from the beginning of the year. DTS is a common measure of risk for corporate bonds, and can be thought of much like an equity's beta. When the overall corporate bond market is rallying, then high-DTS sectors tend to perform better. Conversely, when corporate bonds underperform Treasuries, then high-DTS sectors tend to lose more than the low-DTS alternatives. As can be seen in Chart 5, given that 2017 was a risk-on year, high-DTS sectors tended to outperform low-DTS sectors with a few exceptions. The Basic Industry sector and Financials performed much better than their DTS alone would have predicted, while the Communications sector performed much worse than its DTS would have predicted. Looking ahead into 2018, we make the following observations: Excess returns for investment grade corporate bonds are likely to be lower in 2018 than in 2017.7 In turn, this means that the Credit Risk Premium - the extra return earned for taking an additional unit of DTS risk - will also be lower. We calculated the Credit Risk Premium for each year since 2000 by performing a regression of annual excess returns for each of the 10 major sectors versus their beginning-of-year DTS. The beta from that regression represents the additional return earned that year from taking an extra unit of DTS risk. Chart 6 shows that this Credit Risk Premium is an increasing function of excess returns for the overall corporate sector. Logically, if the year ahead is likely to deliver lower excess returns for the overall index, then we should also expect less additional return from increasing the DTS risk of our corporate bond portfolios. Chart 52017 Corporate Sectors ##br##Excess Returns* Vs DTS** Chart 6Excess Returns* Vs ##br##Credit Risk Premium Second, we use our corporate sector model - a model that adjusts each sector's spread by its average credit rating and duration - to identify sectors that have the potential to outperform their DTS in the coming months. This model is updated each month in our Portfolio Allocation Summary.8 The most recent update shows that the high-DTS Energy, Basic Industry and Communications sectors are all attractively valued. The most attractive low-DTS sectors are Financials and Technology (Chart 7). Chart 7Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Sectors* Bottom Line: Expect less extra compensation from increasing the riskiness of corporate bond portfolios in 2018. The Energy, Communications, Basic Industry, Financial and Technology sectors offer the best risk-adjusted value. Economy & Inflation Does Consumer Credit Growth Put The Recovery At Risk? Last week's employment report showed a sharp increase in aggregate hours worked and suggests that U.S. economic growth has indeed shifted into a higher gear. We use a combination of year-over-year growth in aggregate hours worked and average quarterly productivity growth since 2012 to get a rough tracking estimate for U.S. real GDP growth. After last Friday's report this proxy is up to a healthy 3.1% (Chart 8). Last Friday's Consumer Sentiment data also suggest that consumer spending, the largest component of U.S. GDP, will stay firm in the coming months (Chart 9). While consumer credit growth has started to slow (Chart 9, panel 2) and consumer delinquencies are starting to rise (Chart 9, bottom panel), we are not yet inclined to view those trends as risks to the economic recovery. Chart 8Growth Tracking Well Above Trend Chart 9Credit Growth Falling & Delinquencies Rising First, notice that prior to the onset of recession, consumer spending growth tends to decline while consumer credit growth accelerates. It is only well after the recession begins that consumer credit growth follows spending growth lower. This chain of events is highly logical. In the late stages of the recovery households first start to see their incomes decline and then turn to credit to support their spending needs. Eventually, banks make consumer credit less available and consumer credit growth also decelerates, but we are already well into the recession by then. Chart 10Bank Lending Standards In fact, judging by the patterns observed in the lead up to the last two recessions, the warning sign for the economic recovery would be if consumer credit growth is rising while consumer spending growth is falling. So far this pattern has not been observed. Potentially more troubling is the increase in the consumer credit delinquency rate. Delinquencies do tend to rise prior to the onset of recession, although at the moment delinquencies are rising off an extremely low base. It is possible that after having kept lending standards very stringent for several years after the Great Recession, an uptick in delinquencies off historically low levels simply reflects a return to "business-as-usual" for banks. In fact, the Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Survey showed a large tightening of consumer lending standards during the crisis, but then a moderate easing from 2010 until quite recently (Chart 10). Further, the most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey showed an increase in banks' willingness to extend consumer installment loans. Historically, this has been associated with falling consumer delinquency rates (Chart 10, bottom panel). Bottom Line: All signs are that economic growth has accelerated in recent months. Decelerating consumer credit growth and rising consumer delinquency rates do not yet pose a risk to future spending. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2005/february/testimony.htm 2 For a look at what different combinations of Fed rate hikes and long-maturity yields mean for the slope of the yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income", dated November 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Outlook 2018: Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course", dated November 20, 2017, available at www.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/speeches-and-presentations/2017/assessing-yield-curve 5 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/fed-s-mester-shrugs-off-flattening-yield-curve-in-call-for-hikes 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Junk Bond Jitters", dated November 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income", dated November 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 For the most recent update please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "A Higher Gear", dated December 5, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

With the Senate Republicans passing their version of the bill on December 2, the odds that a final version of the bill will pass into law are now very high, though investors remain skeptical that there will be any stimulative economic effect from tax cuts. While we admit that the direct effect on the economy will be moderate, tax cuts have the potential to sustain the healthy sector rotation and supercharge the ongoing capex cycle. The bulk of the media's analysis to date of the impact of the impending tax reform has been focused on the reduction of the corporate tax rate and the repatriation of foreign earnings. While those are obviously critical, we think more attention should be paid to the provision allowing the immediate expensing of capital investment. Our analysis suggests that the impact of bringing forward the tax shield could, at the margin, change spending behavior for firms and drive the next up-leg for the capex cycle in 2018. We expect S&P industrials (overweight) to be the greatest beneficiary from the ongoing capex boom, considering the tight correlation between capital goods orders and EPS growth (second and third panels), followed by S&P financials (overweight) via a step function higher in loan growth to finance the outsized demand for capital. Please see this week's Special Report for more details.

Highlights The House and Senate have passed similar tax cut bills; passage of a compromise version seems all but certain; Combined with the Trump administration's de-regulation efforts, fundamentals point ever higher for U.S. earnings; The under-reported change, in both versions of the bill, to the expensing of capital investments could have far-reaching implications; All of these support the ongoing healthy sector rotation; The lion's share of upside from the capex upcycle should go to industrials, followed closely by financials. Feature Chart 1Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has maintained a high-conviction view since November 9, 2016 that Congress would pass budget-busting tax cuts.1 With the Senate Republicans passing their version of the bill on December 2, the odds that a final version of the bill will pass into law are now very high. What should investors expect from the new tax legislation? Much as our geopolitical team faced considerable resistance to their political forecast, investors are now skeptical that there will be any stimulative economic effect from tax cuts. While we admit that the direct effect on the economy will be moderate, tax cuts have the potential to sustain the healthy sector rotation and supercharge the ongoing capex cycle. In this Special Report, we explain why. Why Did We Get Tax Cuts Right? What did our geopolitical team get right about tax cuts? First, in November 2016, right after the election, we reminded clients that the Republican Party has a spotty record on fiscal conservativism. There is no empirical evidence that GOP policymakers are actually fiscally conservative (Chart 1), nor that Republican voters have a stable preference for fiscally conservative policies (Chart 2). As such, there was not going to be a popular revolt against tax cuts. Second, in April 2017, we saw that Obamacare repeal's failure actually increased the probability of tax cuts passing. Put simply, tax cuts are about motivating the Republican base to come out and vote in the upcoming midterms, not about satisfying the median American voter. Polling currently suggests that Republicans face an uphill battle to retain majority in the House of Representatives (Chart 3). Should investors fear that the ongoing Mueller investigation will scuttle tax cuts? The short answer is no. First, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and has been charged with that offense, but what he did for the Trump administration in the interim between the election and the inauguration is likely not illegal. Chart 2Republican Desire For Smaller Government Wanes When In Power Chart 3Republicans Losing Popular Support Second, White House scandals and intrigue have rarely mattered to the market. Chart 4A and Chart 4B show that both the Tea Pot Dome scandal (the greatest in U.S. history at the time) and the Lewinsky affair occurred amidst the two greatest bull markets. While the Watergate scandal appears to have shaken the markets, it also escalated simultaneously with the historic 1973 oil shock and the onset of the 1973-75 recession. Besides, why would investors turn negative on the S&P 500 if President Trump - a highly unorthodox, unpredictable, and impulsive politician - looked to be replaced by Vice President Mike Pence? Earnings fundamentals drive the market, not political intrigue. Thus, we would fade impeachment risk and stick to getting the fundamentals right. Chart 4AMassive Bull Markets... Chart 4B...Attended Massive Scandals What about upside potential? Is there any left now that the market has begun to fully price in tax cuts, or will it be a reason to sell and crystalize profits? It is difficult to say, but our sense is that the healthy rotation out of tech (U.S. Equity Strategy is underweight) and into financials (overweight) and industrials (overweight) will gain steam. Also high-effective-tax-rate stocks and mostly domestically focused small caps have likely turned the corner (Chart 5), and the "Fed Spread" (2-year yield minus the fed funds rate) continues to point toward brisk economic growth in coming quarters (Chart 6). While the S&P 500 is up 18% year-to-date, synchronized global economic growth and robust earnings explain half the rise, the other half is forward multiple expansion. Were a 5%-10% pullback to materialize after all the tax-related dust settled, we would deem it a healthy development and a reset that would propel equities higher on the back of firm EPS growth next year. Furthermore, the market has cheered Trump's de-regulation drive, which, unlike tax cuts, has been concrete policy from day one of his administration (Chart 7). Chart 5Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Chart 6Growth Prospects Still Good Chart 7Market Has Cheered De-Regulation De-regulation is likely to continue in parallel with lower taxes. For example, in a potentially huge blow to the enforcement powers of the federal bureaucracy, Trump's Justice Department has switched sides in a lawsuit that may shortly come before the Supreme Court (Lucia v Securities and Exchange Commission). The DOJ is now backing the plaintiffs instead of supporting the SEC as the Obama administration had. If the plaintiffs win their argument that the SEC's "administrative law judges" were unconstitutionally appointed by bureaucrats (instead of by the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department), then all of the prior decisions and penalties enforced by these judges (and their peers in other bureaucracies) may be legally invalidated, weakening the enforcement mechanisms of the federal bureaucracy.2 Bottom Line: Tax cuts are coming while the deregulation drive is set to continue. Both are bullish for the market from a cyclical time perspective. What about the economy and equity-sector-specific winners? To this question we now turn. Lighting The Afterburners On The Capex Cycle With the eye-popping numbers involved, it is no surprise that the media's analysis to date of the impact of the impending tax reform has been focused on the reduction of the corporate tax rate and the repatriation of foreign earnings. However, the impact of those headline-grabbing reforms on changing consumption behavior and, as a result, delivering real economic growth remains hotly debated. We think more attention should be paid to the provision in the versions from both chambers of Congress allowing the immediate expensing of capital investment. Unlike the reductions in tax rate (Table 1), U.S. firms only benefit from this change when they deploy capital on qualified property and equipment at home, an unambiguously stimulative change. Table 1Sector Tax Rates And Pro Forma EPS Changes From Tax Reform We believe most market observers have overlooked this reform as it is simply a "time value of money" shift. The IRS already allows significantly accelerated depreciation of capex (please see the Appendix on page 12 for more detailed information); this reform merely brings it forward. Our analysis suggests that the impact of bringing it forward could, at the margin, change spending behavior for firms and drive the next up-leg for the capex cycle in 2018. In our analysis, we use the example of a railroad. The current tax code allows the firm to depreciate the cost of a locomotive over 7 years, roughly the average for all assets under the depreciation schedule published by the IRS. This already incents the firm to deploy capex aggressively because fleet ages are well in excess of 7 years. Further, as long as the asset is new and to be used in the U.S., the company can depreciate a bonus 40% in the first year.3 Assume this railroad is paying the new marginal tax rate in the U.S. of 20% and has the same cost of capital as the U.S. government, approximating 2.4%. If the railroad purchases a locomotive for $10,000, the current regime offers a present value tax benefit of $1,919 (Table 2). The proposed tax reform allows the railroad to collect that benefit immediately (at least for the next 5 years), yielding a present value 4.2% greater than the current regime. Using an estimate of the S&P 500's weighted average cost of capital (8.5%) as a discount rate (an obviously more realistic scenario), and this advantage climbs to 14.2% (Table 3). Table 2Tax Shield Implications Are Modest With A Low Discount Rate... Table 3...But Grow Substantially As Discount Rates Rise In theory, any profit maximizing firm should alter their capital budgets such that returns are adjusted to incorporate a significantly higher tax shield. We, thus, expect tax reform to drive significant new order growth in the near term as foreseeable capex is pulled forward. A case could be made that this reform changes the math sufficiently that U.S. firms will add capacity that is incremental to existing plans, hinging on a positive feedback loop from the new order growth the pull-forward effect noted above. Who Wins? While our cyclical view of an ongoing EPS upcycle morphing into a virtuous broad-based capex upcycle remains intact (Chart 8)4, there are two sectors that will almost immediately benefit from the tax bill getting signed into law. The greatest, and perhaps most obvious, beneficiary of any capital largesse that will follow this reform will be S&P industrials (overweight) as the principal destination for increases in capital deployment. We expect higher capex to lead to higher sales growth courtesy of firm end-demand and high operating leverage, flow-through to the bottom line, which boosts EPS and sustains the virtuous upcycle. True, wage growth would also get a bump mildly denting profit margins. However, at this stage of the business cycle and given accelerating pricing power (Chart 9), capital goods producers will likely succeed in passing through wage inflation. S&P financials (overweight) too should be significant beneficiaries via a step function higher in loan growth to finance the outsized demand for capital and generalized lift in animal spirits (Chart 10), though they have a partial offset arising from the reduction in value of their net operating loss (NOL) tax assets. A sustained push for more bank deregulation, along with shareholder-friendly activities will also boost the allure of financials equities. Chart 8Earnings Are The Critical Capex Driver Chart 9Capex Upcycles Drive Industrial EPS... Chart 10...And Boost Loan Demand Bottom Line: S&P industrials and financials sectors get an early Christmas present in the form of demand-enhancing tax reform, combined with corporate tax cuts that allow them to keep their profits. The result should be outstanding EPS growth and rising stock prices. The S&P industrials and financials sectors remain core portfolio overweights. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We thank our colleague Matt Conlan, of BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, for the tip on this crucial court case. 3 First year depreciation is set to step down to 40% from 50% in 2018, according to the phasing out of the bonus depreciation under the 2015 PATH Act. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, and "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix: Why Does Accelerated Depreciation Matter? Accelerated depreciation is a tax incentive for firms to invest in capital assets. In essence, the IRS provides depreciable lives of assets that are shorter than useful lives, allowing firms to gain the tax benefit of the depreciation expense earlier in the asset's life. Assuming tax reforms are passed as currently written, firms will be able to deduct 100% of the capital cost of new equipment in the first year. Using our railroad example from earlier in this report, the capital cost was $10,000 and, with a tax rate of 20%, the tax shield is thus $2,000. Continuing with that example, imagine the locomotive has an estimated useful life of 10 years. In the absence of any accelerated depreciation (including that which is already on the books), the tax shield would be roughly half of what accelerated depreciation allows (Table 4). Note that the gross tax benefit is unchanged, it is merely shifted from the future to the present. Table 4Straight Line Depreciation Halves Tax Shield

We downgraded the S&P homebuilders index to underweight last week, owing to three factors: higher interest rates on the back of a pickup in inflation expectations, the threat to mortgage deductibility in pending tax reform and sky-high lumber prices. Weak earnings from Toll Brothers (TOL, not a member of the index but still a proxy) suggest that our move was well-timed as the index has fallen since hitting its 10-year peak last Monday. The first two of our reasons for downgrading homebuilders were because of a darkened affordability outlook. A red-hot economy should stoke inflation expectations, which our bond strategists anticipate will take the 10-year Treasury yield and mortgage rates higher (second panel). Further, the House version of the pending tax plan includes a reduction in deductibility of mortgage interest to the first $500,000 of the loan. Both of these point to ever-decreasing new home demand; TOL announced their slowest order growth since early-2015. Similarly, the S&P homebuilding index's new orders and the NAHB sales expectations survey have clearly rolled over (third panel). At the same time as top lines look under threat, still elevated lumber prices (bottom panel) appear to be biting into margins. In its earnings call, TOL pointed to declining gross margins next year, implying industry pricing power is insufficient to pass through rising costs. Sector EPS should be trending downward as a result; we reiterate our recent downgrade to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME-DHI, LEN, PHM, LEN / B.