Trade / BOP
Highlights The pace of globalization is slowing, reflecting the culmination of a decades-long process of integrating China and other emerging economies into the international trading system. Most commentators overstate the benefits of globalization, while glossing over the increasingly large distributional effects. A modest retreat from globalization would not irrevocably harm global growth, but a full-fledged trade war certainly would. Investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures from a Trump administration. Tactically underweight global equities. U.S. large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H-1B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan. EM stocks could also come under pressure. Treasurys are oversold, but the structural trend for bond yields remains to the upside. The trade-weighted dollar could rally another 5% from current levels. And Take Your Damn Trump Hat With You If there is one sure way to get thrown out of a Davos party, it is by telling the assembled guests that globalization is not all that it is cracked up to be. After all, don't all cultured people know that globalization has made the world vastly richer? Well, maybe it has, but the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as most people might imagine. Twenty years ago, the consensus among economists and policymakers was that international capital mobility should be strongly encouraged. Poor countries had a myriad of profitable investment opportunities, but lacked the savings to finance them, so the argument went. The solution, they were told, was to borrow from wealthier countries, which had a surfeit of savings. In the early 1990s, everything seemed to be going to plan. Emerging markets were running large current account deficits, using the proceeds from capital inflows to finance all sorts of investment projects. And then the Peso Crisis struck. And then the Asian Crisis. And just as quickly as the money came in, it came straight out. The result was mass defaults and depressed economies. Since then, most emerging economies have been trying to maintain current account surpluses - exactly the opposite of what theory would predict. Not to worry, the experts reassured us. What happened in emerging markets could not happen to developed economies with their strong institutions and sophisticated methods for allocating capital. The global financial crisis and later, the European sovereign debt crisis, put these claims to shame. Faced with this reality, the IMF published an official report in 2012 acknowledging that "rapid capital inflow surges or disruptive outflows can create policy challenges." It concluded that "there is ... no presumption that full liberalization is an appropriate goal for all countries at all times."1 This was a stunning about-face for an institution that, among other things, had sharply criticized Malaysia for imposing capital controls in 1998. Diminishing Returns To Globalization In contrast to capital account liberalization, the case for free trade in goods and services stands on sturdier ground. That said, proponents of free trade tend to overstate the benefits. As Paul Krugman has noted, the widely-used Eaton-Kortum model suggests that only about 5% of the increase in global GDP since 1990 can be attributed to higher trade flows.2 Moreover, it appears that the benefits to middle class workers in advanced economies from globalization have fallen over time. This is partly because trade liberalization, like most aspects of economic life, is subject to diminishing returns. Chart 1 shows that each succeeding round of trade liberalization has resulted in ever-smaller declines in average tariff rates. With tariffs on most tradeable goods now close to zero in the U.S. and most other advanced economies, there is less scope to liberalize trade further. As a result, proposed trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have focused on harmonizing business regulations and expanding patent and copyright protections. To call these deals "free trade agreements" is a stretch. Chart 1Tariffs Have Little Room To Decline Further Granted, many "invisible" barriers continue to stymie trade. John Helliwell has documented that a typical firm in Toronto generates roughly ten times as much sales from customers in Vancouver as it does from a similarly-sized, equidistant city in the U.S. such as Seattle.3 As it turns out, differences in legal systems and labor market institutions across countries, as well as differing social networks, can be as important an obstacle to trade flows as tariffs and quotas. But think about what this implies: If globalization were the key to economic development, then Canada, as a small economy situated next to a much larger neighbour, could prosper by dismantling these massive invisible trade barriers. However, we know that this proposition cannot be true: Canada is already a very rich economy, so any further trade liberalization would only boost incomes at the margin. What's Behind The Trade Slowdown? The analysis above helps put the much-discussed slowdown in global trade into context (Chart 2). As the IMF concluded in its most recent World Economic Outlook, while much of the deceleration in trade growth is attributable to cyclical factors, structural considerations also loom large.4 In particular, the boost to global trade over the past few decades stemming from the collapse of communism, the progressive elimination of most trade barriers, and the decision by most developing economies to abandon import-substitution policies appears to have run its course (Chart 3). In addition, the regional disaggregation of the global supply chain is slowing. These days, motor vehicle parts are shipped across national borders many times over before the final product rolls off the assembly line. The manufacturing process can only be broken down so much before diminishing returns set in. Chart 2Global Trade ##br##Growth Is Slowing Chart 3The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Productivity gains in the global shipping industry are also moderating. As Marc Levinson argued in his book "The Box," the widespread adoption of containerization in the 1970s completely revolutionized the logistics and transportation industry. As a consequence, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are long gone. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them into waiting trucks or trains. To the extent that there are still technological advances on the horizon - think self-driving trucks - these are likely to reduce intranational transport costs more than international costs. This could result in even slower trade growth by encouraging onshoring. Trade And Income Distribution Chart 4China's Rise Came Partly At ##br##The Expense Of U.S. Rust Belt Workers As every first-year economics student learns, David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage predicts that real wages will rise when countries specialize in the production of goods that they can manufacture relatively well. Students who stick around (and manage to stay awake) for second-year economics might learn about the Heckscher-Ohlin model. This model qualifies Ricardo's findings. Yes, free trade raises average real wages, but there can be large distributional effects. In particular, low-skilled workers could actually suffer a decline in real wages when rich countries increase trade with poorer countries. As trade ties between advanced and developing countries have grown, these distributional issues have become more important. David Autor has documented that increasing Chinese imports have had a sizable negative effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. (Chart 4).5 It is thus not surprising that voters in Rust Belt states were especially receptive to Donald Trump's protectionist rhetoric. A Tale Of Two Globalizations: China Versus Mexico Most economists agree that trade liberalization has disproportionately benefited developing economies. Nevertheless, there too the benefits are often overstated. China, of course, is frequently cited as an example of a country that has prospered by integrating itself into the global economy. But what about Mexico? It also made a massive push to liberalize trade starting in the mid-1980s, which culminated in NAFTA in 1994. As a consequence, the ratio of Mexican exports-to-GDP rose from 13% in 1994 to 35% at present. Yet, as Chart 5 shows, GDP-per-hour worked has actually declined relative to the U.S. over this period. One key reason why China benefited more from globalization than Mexico is that China had a much better educated workforce. This allowed it to quickly absorb technological know-how from the rest of the world, setting the stage for the spectacular growth of its own domestic industries. Sadly, when it comes to human capital, China is more the exception than the rule across developing economies (Chart 6). Chart 5Trade Liberalization Has Not ##br##Improved Mexico's Relative Productivity Chart 6Educational Achievement ##br##In Emerging Economies: China Stands Out Noble... And Not So Noble Lies To be clear, the discussion above should not be interpreted as arguing that globalization is bad for growth. Trade openness does matter for economic development. However, other things, such as the level of human capital and the quality of domestic economic institutions, matter even more. How can one reconcile this view with the near-apocalyptic terms in which many commentators discuss the anti-globalization sentiment sweeping across many developed economies? Let me suggest two explanations: one noble, one less so. The noble explanation goes beyond economics. Proponents of trade liberalization often argue that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a leading cause of the Great Depression. On purely economic grounds, this argument makes little sense. Exports accounted for less than 6% of U.S. GDP in 1929. While trade volumes did fall rapidly between 1929 and 1932, this was mainly the result of the economic slump, rather than the cause of it. In fact, trade volumes actually fell more in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 7). Yet, from a political perspective, the importance of Smoot-Hawley is hard to deny. At a time when Nazi Germany was on the rise, the U.S. and its allies were squabbling over trade issues. As such, the main problem with Smooth-Hawley was not that it pushed the U.S. into a Depression, but that it sabotaged diplomatic coordination at a time when it was most needed. One suspects that something similar underlies much of the angst over Trump's trade policies. The Global Trade Alert, currently the most comprehensive database for all types of trade-related measures imposed since the global financial crisis, shows an increase in protectionist measures over the last few years (Chart 8). The risk is that this trend will accelerate after Donald Trump is sworn in as President. Chart 7Global Trade Fell More ##br##During The Great Recession Chart 8Protectionist Measures ##br##Are On The Rise Considering that globalization ran into diminishing returns some time ago, a modest unwinding of globalization would probably not have the calamitous impact that many fear. However, just like a plane that fails to fly sufficiently fast will fall to the ground, a "modest unwind" may prove difficult to achieve in practice. Globalization, in other words, may be approaching stall speed. And given the large number of issues that require global cooperation - terrorism, migration, climate change - that is a risk which requires attention. Money Talks If that were all to the story, it would be easy to forgive those who overstate the economic benefits from globalization in order to preserve the political ones. One suspects, however, that there may also be a self-serving motive at work. The integration of millions of workers from China and other developing economies into the global labor market has put downward pressure on wages, boosting profit margins in the process. Not surprisingly, CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other titans of industry have benefited greatly from this development. Chart 9 shows that most of the increase in income equality since 1980 has occurred not at the 99th percentile, but at the 99.99th percentile and higher. It would be naïve to think that the colossal gains that some have enjoyed from globalization would not color what they say on the subject. Chart 9The (Really) Rich Got Richer Investment Conclusions U.S. equities have been in rally mode since the election. Many aspects of Trump's agenda are good for stocks - corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal stimulus, just to name a few. These factors make us somewhat constructive on equities over a long-term horizon. Chart 10Tech Stocks Are Heavily ##br##Exposed To Globalism Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Trump's anti-globalization rhetoric represents a direct threat to corporate earnings. While some of Trump's protectionist proposals will undoubtedly be watered down, investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures. Unlike on most issues where he has flip-flopped repeatedly, Trump has consistently espoused a mercantilist view on trade since the 1980s. He is also the sort of person that strives to reward his supporters while disparaging those who slight him. Rust Belt voters awarded Trump the presidency. Their loyalty will not be forgotten. This means the stock market's honeymoon with Donald Trump may not last much longer. We remain tactically cautious global equities and are expressing that view by shorting the NASDAQ 100 futures. Globally-exposed large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H1-B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan (Chart 10). Emerging market equities are also likely to feel the heat from rising protectionist sentiment in developed economies. A stronger dollar will only add to EM woes by putting downward pressure on commodity prices and making it more expensive for EM borrowers to service dollar-denominated loans. As we discussed in "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar" and "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Will Win, And The Dollar Will Rally," the three key elements of Trump's policy agenda - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and higher tariffs - are all inflationary, and hence are likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than it otherwise would.6 Higher U.S. rates, in turn, will keep the greenback well bid. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to strengthen another 5% from current levels. The flipside of a stronger dollar is increasing monetary policy divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world. U.S. bond yields have risen significantly since the election. Tactically, we would not be adding to short duration positions at current levels. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook,7 weak potential GDP growth is eroding excess capacity around the world, which is bad news for bonds. Population aging could also shift from being bullish to bearish for bonds, as more people retire and begin to draw down their savings. Meanwhile, central banks are looking for ever more creative ways to boost inflation, while the populist wave is forcing governments to abandon austerity measures. Lastly, and most relevant to this week's discussion, globalization - an inherently deflationary force - is in retreat. This, too, suggests that the longer-term risks to inflation are to the upside. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "The Liberalization And Management Of Capital Flows: An Institutional View," IMF Executive Summary, November 14, 2012. 2 Paul Krugman, "The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)," The New York Times, October 1, 2013. 3 John F. Helliwell and Lawrence L. Schembri, "Borders, Common Currencies, Trade And Welfare: What Can We Learn From The Evidence?" Bank of Canada Review, Spring 2005. 4 Please see "Global Trade: What's behind the Slowdown?" in "Subdued Demand: Symptoms and Remedies," IMF World Economic Outlook (October 2016). 5 David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects Of Import Competition In The United States," The American Economic Review, Vol. 103, No. 6, (2013): pp. 2121-2168. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar," dated June 3, 2016, and Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. Even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. Trade friction between the U.S. and China may increase with product-specific tariffs, but that a broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may be becoming less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. Over the long run, the "normal" negative correlation between the performance of exchange rate and that of the stock market should also emerge with regards to the RMB and Chinese stocks. Feature Financial markets will continue to grapple with what U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will bring to the global economy as we head into the final trading weeks of 2016. His signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, a more restrictive immigration policy, and trade protectionism - have already led to a significant repricing of risk asset, and will continue to unsettle investors. As far as China is concerned, the upshot is that more fiscal stimulus under President Trump will generate stronger American demand, which could spill over to China. The downside risk is undoubtedly protectionism, which will cast a long shadow on an economy that is still heavily dependent on overseas markets.1 President-elect Trump declared on the campaign trail that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, accompanied by punitive tariffs on Chinese imports that could reach 45%. This adds a major uncertainty to the growth outlook for China next year. Conditions And Remedies For A Currency Manipulator For now, it is impossible to predict what President Trump will do. He has become notably more pragmatic since his election victory. In his first policy statement, he declared his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as his top priority on trade, while avoiding further China-bashing. However, the true color of his trade policy remains unclear. What is more certain is that the basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. The existing Treasury review process of foreign exchange practices is a formal process laid out in statutory law that governs the reporting process, the need for negotiations in cases of manipulation, and the recommended trade remedies if negotiations fail. Specifically, there are three conditions a nation must meet to be labeled a currency manipulator: It runs a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S.; It has a material current account surplus; and It has engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market. In China's case, the country does run a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S., but its current account surplus as a share of GDP has declined from a peak of 10% in 2007 to 2.5% currently (Chart 1). More importantly, while China's foreign exchange market intervention has indeed been one-sided since 2014, the effort has been to prop up the RMB against the dollar. Without the PBoC's intervention, the RMB would have fallen further, potentially substantially. The RMB may have met all three criteria for currency manipulation before the global financial crisis, but the case is a lot harder to make at the moment. Chart 1Conditions For A Currency Manipulator Moreover, even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. The U.S. Treasury is required to negotiate with alleged currency manipulators, utilizing several "sticks" if negotiations fail: Prohibit the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from financing (including providing insurance to) new projects in that country; Prohibit the federal government from procuring from that country; Seek additional surveillance of the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of that country through the International Monetary Fund; Take into account the currency practices in negotiating new bilateral or regional trade agreements with that country. While these "sticks" may be intimidating enough for small open economies, for a country like China, they are largely irrelevant. There is no ongoing negotiation for bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, and on a federal level the U.S. government rarely procures in China, if at all. Therefore, labeling China a currency manipulator may be a highly symbolic move aimed at satisfying Trump supporters, but the real economic consequences are rather small. To be sure, the U.S. president has enough administrative authority to bypass existing legal constraints and take unilateral action on trade issues. However, that would require extraordinary political capital. Barring this rather "extreme" scenario, we expect trade frictions between the U.S. and China to increase in the form of product-specific tariffs. A broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The Impact On Investment Flows From a balance-of-payment point of view, a country running a trade deficit should not be viewed as a sign that it is losing in bilateral trade. Rather, it reflects capital flows from a surplus country to a deficit country in the form of exported domestic savings. In this vein, China running a chronic current account surplus with the U.S. implies that the country as a whole has been accumulating U.S. assets. By the same token, so long as China runs a current account surplus, it means it is still a net creditor to the rest of the world, and the nation's foreign asset holdings, official and private sector combined, continue to increase. In previous years, it was the Chinese central bank that had increased its holdings of foreign assets, primarily in the form of U.S. Treasurys and other low-risk liquid assets. More recently, as the RMB has been depreciating against the dollar, the Chinese domestic private sector been accumulating foreign assets, particularly denominated in U.S. dollars. In fact, the private sector has taken over as the main source of demand for foreign assets, primarily in risker asset classes such as corporate equities, bonds and real estate. The official sector, on the other hand, has been selling foreign asset holdings, as reflected in China's declining official reserves. In other words, rather than experiencing an exodus of capital, there has been a gigantic "swap" of foreign assets between private and public sector in China. Indeed, Chart 2 shows China's official reserves have dropped significantly in the past two years. Chinese official holdings of Treasurys currently stand at USD 1157 billion, down from USD 1315 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence suggests that buoyant demand among Chinese households for foreign assets, particularly real estate. For the corporate sector, there has been a dramatic increase in overseas mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and other investment activity by Chinese companies, particularly in the U.S. (Chart 3). So far this year, total announced M&A deals by Chinese firms in the U.S. have already tripled compared to last year, however, most are still in progress and pending. Chart 2The Official Sector Is##br## Shedding Foreign Assets... Chart 3... While The Private ##br##Sector Accumulates Looking forward, if the business environment in the U.S. under President Trump becomes less foreign-friendly, it may impact Chinese enterprises' confidence in acquiring U.S. assets, and complicate Chinese companies' M&A deals. At a minimum, the massive increase in Chinese M&A interest in the U.S. will pause until policy visibility improves, while the outlook for many already announced pending deals will remain murky. This may deter further capital flows to the U.S. by the Chinese private sector. Changing Correlation Between The RMB And Stocks? The RMB has continued to drift lower against the dollar in the past week in both the onshore and offshore markets. Interestingly, Chinese stocks have appeared to have largely ignored the RMB's slide and have continued to move higher. This is in stark contrast to last year's panic selloffs that happened whenever RMB appreciation against the dollar appeared to quicken (Chart 4). In August 2015 and January 2016, the RMB's outsized moves against the dollar caused major disruptions in both A shares and H shares, sending shockwaves across the globe. It is too soon to draw definitive conclusions from very short-term moves. However, the changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may have become less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. First, investors may be getting more accustomed to the RMB's rising volatility. The trade-weighted RMB in recent days has been stable, a sign that the RMB's weakness against the dollar is mainly a reflection of the strong dollar. The People's Bank of China and other relevant authorities have also been paying more attention when communicating to market participants, which may also help anchor investors' expectations. Second, in previous episodes of "sharper" RMB depreciation, the Chinese economy was clearly decelerating, and the RMB weakness further amplified investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions. Currently the Chinese economy is showing notable signs of improvement, particularly in the industrial sector, which also lessens investors' concerns. Chart 4The RMB Is Less Troubling ##br##To Market Chart 5The Mirror Image Between Yen ##br##And Japanese Stocks Finally, the market may be starting to reflect the reflationary impact of a weaker currency rather than the negative consequences of RMB depreciation. China's growth improvement is in no small part attributable to the falling exchange rate. This in and of itself limits the RMB's downside, rather than leading to an endless downward spiral. It remains to be seen whether Chinese stocks will stay calm as the RMB continues to depreciate against a surging dollar. Our hunch is that global equity markets, particularly in the U.S., have become complacent with a strong dollar and rising U.S. interest rates, both of which tighten global liquidity conditions. Therefore, global equities are vulnerable to downside risk, which could spill over to the Chinese market. For now, we are staying on the sidelines and do not suggest investors chase the rally in Chinese equities. However, over the long run, we expect investors will eventually come to terms with the "new normal" for the RMB as it becomes an important macro factor for the economy and stock market. Chart 5 shows that the performance of Japanese stocks has almost been a mirror image of the yen/dollar exchange rate, in which a weaker yen boosts Japan's growth profile as well as stock prices, and vice versa. Barring a crisis scenario, such a correlation will also emerge between the RMB and Chinese stocks over the long run. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture", dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong Chart I-2BMedium Expansions Chart I-2CA Short Expansion Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.
Highlights The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. However, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. in China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s. The case of China U.S. steel trade dispute suggests that unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. Feature Global financial markets have gradually been coming to terms with the concept of President Donald Trump. Interestingly, U.S. equity market participants appear to be cheering on a potentially sizable fiscal spending package under the new administration, which has boosted industrial sector stocks over the past week. Markets in Asia, particularly Chinese H shares, however, have been less upbeat and have focused more on a possible protectionism backlash emanating from the U.S. under the new leadership. Tough talk on China has featured in every U.S. presidential campaign going back to Nixon reaching out to China in the early 1970s - from Jimmy Carter's strong condemnation of Nixon-Kissinger's "immoral" secret diplomacy of "ass kissing" the Chinese, to Bill Clinton's harsh warnings to the "butchers of Beijing", to repeated pledges by Obama in the 2008 campaign to label China as a "currency manipulator" - all of which signaled an immediate confrontation. Once in office, however, all candidates significantly softened their rhetoric, as government policies require much more realistic and thoughtful discussion, negotiation and compromise. Furthermore, given the huge importance of trade for both economies, a full-fledged trade war between the U.S. and China would risk the growth recession and enormous financial volatility around the globe, a lose-lose outcome hardly conceivable to anyone, no matter how much chest-thumping and aggrandizing is involved. To be sure, the threat of protectionism should not be downplayed. It appears clear that president-elect Trump will be less accommodative to free trade than his predecessors, which is confirmed by his choice of Mr. Dan Dimicco, a former CEO of an American steelmaker and an outspoken critic of U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, to head his trade transition team. However, it is unpredictable at the moment what specific measures he would take to be able to assess potential consequences. It is therefore more useful to take a step back and look at the big picture of trade relations between the two countries. China-U.S. Bilateral Trade Chinese sales to the U.S. far outnumber its purchases, leading to an ever-growing trade surplus in China's favor (Chart 1). In fact, the U.S. accounts for over half of China's total trade surplus - a key piece of evidence supporting some American politicians' accusation of China's purported currency manipulation and unfair trade practices. The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. Underneath, however, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. as part of China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s (Chart 2). The share of U.S.-bound Chinese exports has remained roughly unchanged since the global financial crisis, and down significantly from pre-crisis levels. Chinese sales to the U.S. in recent years have been largely in line with overall export growth. On the contrary, American shipments to China have increased sharply as a share of total exports. Over the past five years, China has accounted for almost 20% of the net increase in U.S. exports, far outpacing any other American trade partner. Chart 1U.S.-China##br## Bilateral Trade Chart 2China Depends More ##br##On The U.S. Than Vice Versa Conventional wisdom holds that protectionist policies will be of more benefit to those countries running deficits in bilateral trade. However, a trade war with China would also remove the biggest source of marginal demand for American goods, which would be met with strong domestic resistance. Anti-Dumping And China's Trade Performance China is no stranger to anti-dumping measures in global trade. The country accounts for 30% of all anti-dumping actions initiated by World Trade Organization (WTO) members in recent years, even though Chinese products account for only about 14% of total global goods exports. China has not been regarded as a "market economy" by major developed countries, making it an easier target for punitive tariffs and other barriers under WTO rules. A case in point is steel products, which remain center stage in the ongoing trade dispute between China and the U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002 imposed tariffs of up to 30% on a broad range of Chinese steel products, while the Obama administration further upped the ante with various product-specific punitive measures during his tenor. These measures have dramatically changed steel trade for both countries: From the U.S. side, total American steel imports have remained largely range-bound in the past 20 years, but Chinese steel products have had a dramatic rollercoaster ride (Chart 3). Punitive tariffs led to a collapse of Chinese steel in the U.S. market, accounting for a mere 3% of total U.S. steel imports, down from a peak of almost 20% in 2008. However, the losses to Chinese steelmakers have simply been filled by other exporting countries. For example, U.S. steel imports from Brazil have roared back to historical high levels as Chinese products plummeted (Chart 3, bottom panel). On the Chinese side, Chinese steel products suffered huge market share losses in the U.S., but the country's total steel exports have continued to make new record highs, as it has dramatically expanded sales to other markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 4). The U.S. currently accounts for about 1% of total Chinese steel exports, down from about 10% at the peak, while Vietnam has rapidly replaced the U.S. as a key market for Chinese steelmakers to expand overseas sales. Chart 3China In U.S. Steel Imports Chart 4U.S. In Chinese Steel Exports Moreover, the punitive measures imposed by the U.S. have pushed Chinese steelmakers into higher value-added products. The top panel of Chart 5 shows the average price of American steel imports from China was roughly comparable to U.S. steel purchases from other developing countries in the late 1990s, while Germany and Japanese steelmakers traditionally occupied the higher-priced segments. The situation has shifted quickly in the past two decades: The unit price of Chinese steel sales in the U.S. has risen rapidly relatively to their peers, increasingly challenging producers in more advanced countries. Other emerging countries have filled the space left by China and remained at the lower end of the spectrum. Similarly, on the Chinese side, the average price of Chinese steel exports to the U.S. has increased sharply in recent years relative to other major markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, the average price of China's steel products exported to the U.S. is far higher than to other countries - almost triple that to other emerging countries. This confirms that Chinese steelmakers have been moving up the value-added ladder in the U.S. market, but have been "dumping" cheaper products to other developing countries. The important point here is that the punitive tariffs have indeed significantly reduced Chinese sales to the U.S., but other steel-producing countries have simply "stolen" China's lunch. By the same token, unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. Moreover, President Trump may still target Chinese steel products as a highly symbolic gesture to show his toughened stance on China and to keep his campaign trail promises of reviving rust-belt states - the relevance of which, however, has diminished dramatically, as steel products now account for only a tiny fraction of total trade between these two countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Steelmakers##br## Are Moving Up The Value Chain Chart 6Steel Is No Longer ##br##Relevant For China-U.S. Trade U.S. And China In Global Trade A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. For tradable goods, it is well known that China has long surpassed the U.S. as the world top exporter. For imports of goods, the U.S. is still bigger, but the gap has narrowed dramatically (Chart 7). China has already become a bigger market than the U.S. for a growing list of countries, particularly commodities producers and China's Asian neighbors. What is much less known is that Chinese imports of services just this year also surpassed that of the U.S., marking an important milestone in China's global reach and influence (Chart 8). Moreover, China's exports of services are much smaller, leaving a deficit almost as large as U.S. service surpluses with the rest of the world. Chart 7U.S. And China##br## In Global Trade Of Goods Chart 8China Surpassed##br##The U.S. In Service Imports In a world starving for growth, China remains a bright spot. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. China will inevitably continue to explore bilateral and multilateral free-trade agreements (FTA) with its main trade partners. China currently has 19 FTAs under construction, among which 14 agreements have been signed and implemented. Together, FTAs cover an increasingly bigger share of Chinese exports, higher than Chinese sales to the U.S. (Chart 9). Chart 9China Sells More To FTA##br## Countries Than To The U.S. Meanwhile, China will likely take a more active role in negotiating the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)" - an ambitious multilateral agreement on trade and investments that covers almost half of the world population and output. On the other hand, the outlook of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) under President Trump has become more uncertain, which may also push other emerging countries to participate in China-initiated trade deals. If President Trump indeed turns more inward, the center of global trade will further shift toward China. A Word On The RMB And Industrial Stocks The RMB has continued to drift lower against the greenback in recent days, which still reflects the dollar's broad strength rather than RMB weakness. In fact, the trade-weighted RMB has strengthened notably (Chart 10). Conspiracy theories abound that China may engineer a flash-crash of the RMB before President Trump takes office to "preempt" any protectionist pressures. This scenario certainly cannot be ruled out, but it is highly unlikely in our view, as it may further intensify trade tensions between the two countries, making Trump's trade policy on China even less predictable. In short, we maintain the view that the near-term RMB outlook is entirely dictated by the movement of the dollar, and that the Chinese authorities should be able to maintain exchange rate stability, as discussed in recent reports.1 Turning to the stock market, Chinese industrial stocks have not joined the sharp post-Trump rally of their U.S. counterparts, likely a reflection of investors' conviction that protectionism in the U.S. may benefit domestic firms at the expense of foreign entities, particularly Chinese firms. (Chart 11). However, similar to almost all other major sectors, the profitability of Chinese industrial names is almost identical to their American peers, but they are trading at hefty discounts based on conventional valuation indicators, reflecting a much larger risk premium in Chinese stocks. For now, we remain on the sidelines with respect to Chinese stocks due to developing global uncertainty, as discussed in detail last week.2 Beyond near-term tactical consideration, we expect Chinese shares to resume their uptrend both in absolute terms and against EM and global benchmarks. Chart 10The RMB Remains Stable##br## In Trade-Weighted Terms Chart 11Industrial Stocks:##br## Spot The Differences Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, and "Greater China Currencies: An Overview", dated November 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Trump's election victory means that there is potential for policy settings to flip from "easy money, tight fiscal" to "tight money, easy fiscal" The market implications of that shift are dollar bullish, bond bearish and equity mixed. The major risk is that violent currency and bond market moves rekindle emerging market stress and/or choke off the recovery before fiscal spending kicks in. Trump's trade reform risks being a tax on growth. Businesses may opt to automate instead of hire. A variety of factors now make small caps appealing relative to large caps. Feature Contrary to the pre-election consensus, Donald Trump's election victory has prompted a risk-on rally, based on the notion that Trump's vision of fiscal largesse will be realized (Chart 1). Ultimately, it will only become clear what policy changes are on the table once Trump takes office in January. The consensus at BCA is that Trump will be "unbound" in his first two years as President. Thus, if Trump lives up to his campaign promises, fiscal stimulus and trade restriction will be tabled early in 2017. Chart 1Trump Moves As we argue below, trade restrictions should be viewed as a tax on growth. We have doubts about the link between job creation and tariffs. If anything, imposing tariffs on imports could incite a more intense wave of automation. After all, the cost of capital is still attractive relative to labor costs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending - if delivered even close to the size and scope that Trump has hinted at in his pre-election speeches - will boost GDP growth well above trend in 2017. If that occurs, the dynamic that has existed since 2010, i.e. "tight fiscal, exceptionally easy money policy" will rapidly flip to "easy fiscal, tight money". For the bond market and the U.S. dollar, the investment implications are clear: Treasuries are likely to head higher, and the pressure will be for the U.S. dollar to rise. Implications for equities are less certain. If the U.S. dollar rises, it might rekindle emerging world financial stress and undermine U.S. corporate profits. The rapid rise in yields may not easily be digested by the equity market and it is notable that corporate spreads have not rallied along with other risk assets in recent days. We are comfortable maintaining a defensive stance. Donald Trump said a lot of things to a lot of people during the campaign process. He can't possibly deliver on all of his promises, but earlier this week, BCA sent out a Special Report to all clients, outlining the implications of the election results and what we expect he can accomplish.1 We believe there are three that are especially important for investors to monitor: the potential for trade restrictions, gauging fiscal stimulus and monetary policy settings in this possibly new environment. Stagflation? Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade and the U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Trump can also impose tariffs. All of this is of course inflationary, and it's the nasty kind. We have repeatedly written in this publication that, historically, the U.S. economy only falls into recessions for two reasons. The first is growth-restrictive monetary policy and the second is an adverse supply shock that acts like a tax on growth, e.g. an oil price spike. Tariffs are akin to the latter. Chart 2 shows that as import penetration rose over the past 30 years, tradeable goods price inflation steadily fell. A simple read of the chart suggests that with barriers in place and as import penetration recedes, the process of the past 30 years will reverse and consumer goods prices will rise. This can easily be absorbed if it is accompanied by rising wages via the "onshoring" of jobs. But that is not a foregone conclusion. Instead of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., a more logical decision might be for businesses to further automate production. After all, earlier studies have already concluded that nearly half of all existing jobs are at high risk of being automated over the next decade or so.2 As Chart 3 shows, with the price of capital equipment and software still falling and the cost of capital so low relative to the cost of labor, the incentive to automate instead of hire is high. Chart 2Trade And Inflation Chart 3Tariffs May Lead To Robots, Not Jobs The bottom line is that increased tariffs will increase prices in the near term. But it is hardly clear that this will improve the lives of voters or create a more virtuous economic recovery. Opening The Fiscal Taps... In last week's report, we explored the potential for fiscal spending to turbocharge the U.S. economy. We warned that fiscal multipliers are probably not overly high in the current environment and the effectiveness of fiscal spending is highly dependent on the type of fiscal stimulus. Trump has called for significantly lowering both income and corporate taxes, although his main pitch has been infrastructure spending. The latter tends to have the highest multiplier effects, but can often take a long time to get underway. However, one important point is that Trump will face little political restraint, at least in his first two years in office. Gridlock will not be a problem given that all three Houses are now in GOP hands. And it will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Moreover, the GOP has historically not been that fiscally conservative. Overall, a Trump government will more than make up for the drag from weak state and local spending that we wrote about last week. Exactly how big of an impulse will only become clear once Trump takes office. ...And Tightening The Money Supply? Forecasts about the impact of fiscal spending on 2017 GDP growth are premature, since it is impossible to decipher an action plan from campaign rhetoric. And the severity of stagflation due to trade restrictions will be highly dependent on the form and scope of trade reform. Ergo, it is too early to make bold new assumptions about the path of Fed rate hikes. An aggressive fiscal plan that boosts GDP well above trend growth would force policymakers to revise their expected path of rate hikes higher. That would be a sea change from the past four years, when policymakers have consistently revised the neutral rate down. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked Janet Yellen and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that investigating the Fed will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Market Action The bond market has already priced in more inflation and more growth for 2017 since Trump's victory. 10-year Treasury yields have surged to 2.15% and momentum selling could lift the 10-year Treasury yield even further into oversold territory. But that is not a case to become aggressively underweight duration. Dollar strength and rising bond yields have already tightened financial conditions significantly over the past several weeks. The risk is that these trends go too far in the near term, inflicting economic damage before fiscal spending kicks in. Given the easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth outperformance in the U.S. and rising interest rates, the dollar should rise in the medium term. We remain dollar bulls. We have been surprised by the equity market action since November 8. Although we repeatedly wrote that a Trump victory was unlikely to have meaningful negative consequences for risk asset prices, we did not anticipate a rally. As for equities, our cautiousness toward risk assets in 2016 has been primarily focused on the ongoing headwinds for profits in a demand-deficient economy, especially while margins are falling and valuations are elevated (Chart 4). Greater fiscal spending would surely help to alleviate our concern, although that conclusion seems premature given the lack of contour to Trump's plans so far. Perhaps the greatest downside risk is a reaction from China. After all, Trump's anti-trade rhetoric has been pointed (mostly) at China and Asia. Recall that in August, 2015, the RMB was devalued just weeks ahead of an expected rate hike from the Fed. That devaluation sent shock waves through financial markets and ultimately delayed the Fed rate hike until the end of the year (Chart 5). A similar proactive policy move from Chinese policymakers should be on investors' radars. Overall, we remain comfortable with our cautious equity stance, albeit recent market action has created an entry point in favor of small relative to large cap stocks. Chart 4Equity Fundamentals Still Poor Chart 5China: Global Stability Risk? Enter Small Cap Bias We upgraded small caps relative to large caps to neutral in August. We now recommend investors make the full switch to a small cap bias relative to large caps. Small cap stocks were hit harder than large caps in the weeks leading up to the election, as investors shed riskier assets; we believe this provides a good entry point to a cyclical uptrend in small cap performance (Chart 6). True, at first glance, advocating for small cap exposure appears inconsistent with our overall defensive equity strategy. After all, small cap outperformance tends to be associated with risk-on phases. However, small cap stocks have a variety of other characteristics that currently make them appealing relative to larger caps. Chart 6(Part I) Favor Small/Large Caps Chart 7(Part II) Favor Small/Large Caps Small cap companies tend to be more domestically focused. We expect that U.S. growth will continue to outpace growth overseas. And particularly important, small cap companies, with their domestic focus, are better insulated from dollar strength (Chart 7). Small cap weightings are no longer geared toward cyclical sectors. As part of our cautious strategy, we remain focused on defensive vs. cyclical sectors. There are no major differences between large and small cap defensive and cyclical sector weightings (Table 1). Trump corporate tax reform, if implemented, will favor small, domestic firms. Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates, any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then this would diminish their current tax advantage vis-à-vis smaller companies. Table 1Similar Weightings For Small And Large Cap Cyclicals And Defensives Bottom Line: Small cap outperformance is typically associated with risk-on equity phases. However, valuations now favor small caps. Importantly, small caps are better insulated from dollar strength and are one way to play the domestic vs. global theme. Additionally, smaller firms will be the relative winners from corporate tax reform. Small caps are set to outperform large caps. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 "The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerisation?" Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, September 2013. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process Chart 8. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes remained unchanged this month: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The neutral portfolio recommendation for equities is in line with our qualitative defensive stance, in place since August 2015. Although the technical component of the equity model still has a "buy" signal, the breadth indicator has moved into less favorable territory relative to the momentum indicator. The monetary component has also slightly weakened but retains its positive bias for equities. The earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as expectations for the outlook of corporate profits would need to be bolstered through stronger economic stronger growth over the medium term. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. Even so, despite that the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model still persist, the preference for Treasuries has diminished to some extent. Nevertheless, the valuation component continues trending towards expensive territory and a "buy signal" remains in place Chart 9. Chart 8Portfolio Total Returns Chart 9Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.
BCA will be holding the Dubai session of the BCA Academy seminar on November 28 & 29. This two-day course teaches investment professionals how to examine the economy, policy, and markets; and also makes links between these important factors. Moreover, it represents a great networking opportunity for all attendees. I look forward to seeing you there. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights Donald Trump's victory represents a sea-change for U.S. politics as well as the economy. His expansionary fiscal policy, to be implemented as the labor market's slack evaporates, will boost demand, wages, and will prove inflationary. The Fed will respond with higher rates, boosting the dollar. EM Asian currencies will bear the brunt of the pain. Commodity currencies, especially the AUD, will also be significant casualties. EUR/USD will weaken in the face of a strong greenback, but should outperform most currencies. Key risks involve gauging whether the Fed genuinely wants to create a "high-pressure", economy as well as the potential for Chinese fiscal stimulus. Feature Trump's electoral victory only re-enforces our bullish stance on the dollar. A Trump presidency implies much more fiscal stimulus than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Fed will not be the only game in town to support growth. This strengthens our view that, on a cyclical basis, the OIS curve still underprices the potential for higher U.S. interest rates. In a Mundell-Fleming world, this suggests a much higher exchange rate for the greenback. Additionally, Trump's protectionist views are likely to hit EM economies - China in particular - harder than DM economies. We continue to prefer expressing our bullish dollar view by shorting EM and commodity currencies. Is Trump Handcuffed? Trump's victory reflects a tidal wave of anger and dissatisfaction with the current state of the U.S. economy. Most profoundly, his candidacy was a rallying cry against an increasingly unequal distribution of economic opportunities and outcomes for the U.S. population. As we highlighted last week, since 1981, the top 1% of households have seen their share of income grow by 11%. In fact, while 90% of households have seen their real income contract by 1% since 1980, the top 0.01% of households have seen their real income increase more than five-fold (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The (Really) Rich Got Richer In this context, Trump's appeal, more than his often-distasteful racial or gender rhetoric, has been his talk of protecting the middle class. But, by losing the popular vote, are his hands tied? Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, surmises in a Special Report1 sent to all BCA's clients that it is not the case. First, Trump's victory speech emphasized infrastructure spending, indicating that this is likely to be his first priority. As Chart I-2 illustrates, there is a lot of room for the government to spend on this front. At 1.4% of GDP, government investment is at its lowest level since World War II. Furthermore, according to the Tax Policy Institute, Trump's current plan includes $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. Second, the Republican Party now controls Congress as well as the White House. Not only has the GOP historically rallied around the president when all the levers of power are in the party's hands, but also, the Tea party has been one of Trump's most ardent supporters. Hence, Trump's program is unlikely to be completely squelched by Congress. Third, the GOP is most opposed to government spending when Democrats control the White House. When Republicans are in charge of the executive, the GOP is a much less ardent advocate of government stringency, having increased the deficit in the opening years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Room To Increase##br## Infrastructure Spending Chart I-3Republicans Are Fiscally Responsible ##br##When It Suits them Finally, international relations are the president's prerogative. While there are legal hurdles to renegotiate treaties like NAFTA, Trump can slap tariffs easily, rendering previous arrangements quite impotent. Though protectionism has not been highlighted in Trump's victory speech, the topic's popularity with his core electorate highlights the risk that trade policies could be impacted. Bottom Line: Trump has a mandate to spend and got elected because of his policies that support the middle class. His surprise victory represents a sea-change, a move the rest of the Republican establishment will not ignore. Therefore, we expect Trump to be able to implement large-scale fiscal stimulus. Economic Implications To begin with, Trump is a populist politician. While populism ultimately ends badly, it can generate a growth dividend for many years. Nowhere was this clearer than in 1930s Germany, where Hitler's reign yielded a major economic outperformance of Germany relative to its regional competitors (Chart I-4).2 Government infrastructure spending played a large role in this phenomenon. Also, the Reagan era shows how fiscal stimulus can lead to a boost to growth. From the end of the 1981-82 recession to 1987, U.S. real GDP per capita outperformed that of Europe and Japan, despite the dollar's strength in the first half of the decade. Fascinatingly, the U.S. GDP per capita even outperformed that of the U.K., a country in the midst of the supply-side Thatcherite revolution (Chart I-5). This suggests that the U.S's economic outperformance was not just a reflection of Reagan's deregulatory instincts. Chart I-4Populism Can Boost Growth Chart I-5Reagan Deficits Boosted Growth Too Unemployment is close to its long-term equilibrium, and the hidden labor-market slack has greatly dissipated. Additionally, one of the biggest hurdles facing small businesses is finding qualified labor. In the context of a tight labor market, we anticipate that Trump's fiscal stimulus will not only boost aggregate demand directly, but will also exert significant pressures on already rising wages (Chart I-6). Compounding this effect, if Trump does indeed focus on infrastructure spending, work by BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service shows that this type of stimulus offers the highest fiscal multiplier (Table I-1).3 Chart I-6Stimulating Now Will Feed Wage Growth Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Additionally, a retreat away from globalization, and a move toward slapping more tariffs and quotas on Asia and China would be inflationary. Historically, falling inflation has coincided with falling tariffs as competitive forces increase. This time, with the output gap closing, and the tightening labor market, decreasing the trade deficit could arithmetically push GDP above trend, accentuating wage and inflationary pressures. Finally, for households, a combination of rising wages, elevated consumer confidence, and low financial obligations relative to disposable income could prompt a period of re-leveraging (Chart I-7). Moreover, the median FICO score for new mortgages has fallen from more than 780 in 2013 to 756 today, an easing in lending standard for mortgages. All the factors above suggest that U.S. growth is likely to improve over the next two years, driven by the government and households. It also points towards rising inflationary pressures. As we have highlighted before, the more the economy can generate wage growth to support domestic consumption, the more it becomes resilient in the face of a stronger dollar. The tyranny of the feedback loop between the dollar and growth will loosen. This environment would be one propitious for the Fed to hike interest rates as the economy becomes less dependent on lower rates for support. In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day. Bottom Line: Trump is likely to boost U.S. economic activity through fiscal stimulus, especially infrastructure spending. Since the slack in the economy is now small, especially in the labor market, this increases the likelihood that the Fed will finally be able to durably push up interest rates (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Household Debt Load Can Grow Again Chart I-8Vanishing Slack = Higher Rates Currency Market Implications The one obvious effect from a Trump victory is that it re-enforces our core theme that the dollar will strengthen on a 12 to 18-months basis as the market reprices the Fed's path. However, we expect Asian currencies to be viciously hit by this new round of dollar strength. For one, compared to the drubbing LatAm currencies received, KRW, TWD, and SGD are only trading 13%, 9%, and 15% below their post 2010 highs. Most importantly though, EM Asia has been the main beneficiary of 35 years of expanding globalization. Countries like China or the Asian tigers have registered world-beating growth rates thanks to a growth strategy largely driven by exports (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Former Winners Become Losers Under Trump We expect these economies and currencies to suffer the most from Trump's retribution and from a continued structural underperformance of global trade. China, Korea, and co. are likely to be hit by tariffs under a Trump administration. Also, under a Trump administration, the likelihood of implementation of new international trade treaties is near zero. Therefore, the continuous expansion of globalization of the previous decades is over, and may even somewhat reverse. Furthermore, a move toward a more multipolar world, like the interwar period, tends to be associated with falling trade engagement. Trump's desire to diminish the global deployment of U.S. troops would only add to such worries. Regarding the RMB, the picture is murky. On the one hand, the RMB is trading 4% below fair value and does not need much devaluation from a competitiveness perspective. However, Chinese internal deflationary pressures, courtesy of much overcapacity, remain strong (Chart I-10). Easing these pressures requires a lower RMB. Moreover, the offshore yuan weakened substantially in the wake of Trump's victory, yet the onshore one did not, suggesting that the PBoC is depleting its reserves to support the currency. This tightens domestic liquidity conditions, exacerbating the deflationary forces in the country. Chart I-10Plenty Of Excess Capacity In China This means that China is in a bind as a depreciating currency will elicit the wrath of president Trump. The risk is currently growing that China will let the RMB fall substantially between now and January 20. Such a move would magnify any devaluating pressures on other Asian exchange rates. While it is difficult to be bullish MXN outright on a cyclical basis when expecting a broad dollar rally, the recent weakness in MXN is overdone. Mexico has not benefited nearly as much from globalization as Asian nations. Also, after a 60% appreciation in USD/MXN since June 2014, even after the imposition of tariffs, Mexico will still be competitive. Even then, the likelihood and severity of any tariffs enacted on Mexico might be exaggerated by markets. In fact, President Nieto's invitation to Trump last summer may prove to have been a particularly uncanny political move. Investors interested in buying the peso may want to consider doing it against the won, potentially one of the biggest losers from a Trump presidency. Outside of EM, the AUD is at risk. Australia sits in the middle of the pack in terms of economic and export growth during the globalization era, but it is very exposed to Asian economic activity. Historically, the AUD has been tightly correlated with Asian currencies (Chart I-11). Adding insult to injury, Australia is a large metals producer, which means that Australia's terms of trade are highly levered to the Chinese investment cycle, the main source of demand for iron ore, copper, etc. (Chart I-12). With China already swimming in over capacity, unless the government enacts a new infrastructure package, Chinese imports of raw materials will remain weak. Chart I-11AUD Will Suffer If Asian Currencies Fall Chart I-12China Is The Giant In The Room The NZD is also likely to suffer against the USD. The currency's sensitivity to the dollar strength and EM spreads is very high. However, we expect AUD/NZD to remain depressed. The outlook for relative terms of trades supports the kiwi as ag-prices will be less impacted by a slowdown in Chinese capex than metals. Additionally, on most metrics, the New Zealand economy is outperforming that of Australia (Chart I-13). The CAD should beat both antipodean currencies. First, it is less sensitive to the U.S. dollar or EM spreads than both the AUD and the NZD, reflecting its tighter economic link with the U.S. We also expect some softer rhetoric and actions from Trump when it comes to implementing trade restrictions with Canada than with Asia. Finally, while we are very concerned for the outlook for metals, the outlook for energy is superior. Yes, a strong greenback is a headwind for oil prices, but a Trump presidency is likely to result in strong household consumption. Vehicle-miles-driven growth would remain elevated, suggesting healthy oil demand from the U.S. Meanwhile, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects the drawdown in global oil inventories to accelerate, particularly if Saudi Arabia and Russia can agree on a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of the month, which is bullish for oil (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Stronger Kiwi Domestic Fundamentals Chart I-14Better Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil We also remain yen bears. The isolationist stance of Trump is likely to incentivize Abe to double down on fiscal stimulus, especially on the military. Japan is currently massively outspent on that front by China (Chart I-15). With the BoJ pegging policy rates at 0% for the foreseeable future, the yen will swoon on the back of falling real yields. Moreover, if our bearish stance on Asian currencies materializes itself, this will put competitive pressures on the yen, creating an additional negative. For the euro, the picture is less clear. The euro remains the mirror image of the dollar, so a strong greenback and a weak euro are synonymous. Additionally, Trump stimulus, if enacted, will ultimately result in higher nominal and real yields in the U.S. relative to Europe, especially as the euro area does not display any signs of being at full employment (Chart I-16). That being said, the euro is currently very cheap, supported by a current account surplus, and the ECB might begin tapering asset purchases in the second half of 2017. Combining these factors together, while we remain cyclically bearish on EUR/USD - a move below parity over the next 12-18 months is a growing possibility - the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and even the yen. We are looking to buy EUR/JPY, especially considering the skew in positioning (Chart I-17). Chart I-15Japan Will Spend More On Its ##br##Military With Or Without Trump Chart I-16European Labor Market##br## Slack Is Evident Chart I-17EUR/JPY Has##br## Room To Rally Finally, the outlook for the pound remains clouded until we get a better sense of the High Court's decision on the government's appeal regarding the need for a Parliamentary vote on Brexit. We expect the court's decision to re-inforce the previous ruling, which means that the pound could strengthen as the probability of a "soft Brexit" grows. The resilience of the pound in the face of the recent dollar's strength points to such an outcome. Risk To Our View And Short-Term Dynamics The biggest risk to our view is obviously that Trump's fiscal plans never pan out. However, since our bullish stance on the dollar predates Trump's electoral victory, we would therefore remain dollar bulls, albeit less so. Nonetheless, limited fiscal stimulus would likely cause a temporary pullback in the dollar. Chart I-18A Mispricing Or A Signal? Another short-term risk is the Fed. Currently, inflation expectations in the U.S. have shot up. If the Fed does not increase rates in December - this publication currently thinks the FOMC will increase rates then - the dollar will fall as this move will put downward pressures on U.S. real rates. This is especially relevant as the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 2.8%, in line with the Fed's estimate of the long-term equilibrium Fed funds rates as per the "dots". A big risk for our EM / commodity currency view is China. China may not respond to Trump by aggressively bidding down the CNY before January 20. Instead, to counteract the negative effect of Trump on Chinese export growth, China might instigate more fiscal stimulus, plans that always have a large infrastructure component. The recent parabolic move in copper needs monitoring (Chart I-18). Bottom Line: A Trump victory is a massive boon for the dollar. However, because Trump represents a move away from globalization, the main casualties of the Trump-dollar rally will be Asian currencies and the AUD. The CAD and the NZD will also undergo downward pressures, but less so. Finally, while EUR/USD is likely to fall, the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and the yen. As a risk, in the short-term, an absence of Fed hike in December would represent the biggest source of weakness for the dollar. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 To be clear, while we do find some of Trump comments over the past year highly distasteful, we are not suggesting that he is a re-incarnation of Hitler or that his presidency is doomed to end in a massive global conflict. It is only an economic parallel. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it." - U.S. President Elect Donald Trump (November 9, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "I'm very skeptical as far as further interest rate cuts or additional expansionary monetary policy measures are concerned -- over time, the benefits of these measures decrease, while the risks increase" - ECB Executive Board Member Sabine Lautenschlaeger (November 7,2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "In order for long-term interest rate control to work effectively, it is important to maintain the credibility in the JGB market through the government's efforts toward establishing sustainable fiscal structures" - BoJ Minutes (November 10, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "[The impact of a weak pound on inflation]... will ultimately prove temporary, and attempting to offset it fully with tighter monetary policy would be excessively costly in terms of foregone output and employment growth. However, there are limits to the extent to which above-target inflation can be tolerated" - BOE Monetary Policy Summary (November 3, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Inflation remains quite low...Subdued growth in labor costs and very low cost pressures elsewhere in the world mean that inflation is expected to remain low for some time" - RBA Monetary Policy Statement (October 31, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Weak global conditions and low interest rates relative to New Zealand are keeping upward pressure on the New Zealand dollar exchange rate. The exchange rate remains higher than is sustainable for balanced economic growth and, together with low global inflation, continues to generate negative inflation in the tradables sector. A decline in the exchange rate is needed" - RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler (November 10, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We have studied the research and the theory behind frameworks such as price-level targeting and targeting the growth of nominal gross domestic product. But, to date, we have not seen convincing evidence that there is an approach that is better than our inflation targets" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (November 1, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Banks' capital ratios have doubled since the financial crisis and liquidity has improved. At the same time, some aspects of the Norwegian economy make the financial system vulnerable. This primarily relates to high property price inflation combined with high household indebtedness" - Norges Bank Deputy Governor Jon Nicolaisen (November 2, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "...the weak inflation outcomes in recent months illustrate the uncertainty over how quickly inflation will rise. The Riksbank now assesses that it will take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent. The upturn in inflation therefore needs continued strong support" - Riksbank Minutes (November 9, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades