Financial Markets

Highlights Dear Clients, Please note that this will be our final Weekly Report for the year. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 3, 2017. The U.S. Investment Strategy team wishes you a restful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Chart 1Trump + Yellen Recent bond market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market, when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. There are mitigating factors that mean the current bond selloff will not be as violent. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. Even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Feature It was no surprise that the FOMC raised the Fed funds rate by 25bps at last week's meeting. But investors were caught off-guard by the move higher in the Fed's "dot" forecast. Instead of two more hikes next year, the Fed now expects to raise rates three times. Moreover, the Fed inched up its estimate of the terminal interest rate to 3.0% from 2.875%. These revisions to the path of interest rates did not occur with any material changes to the Fed's economic projections. During the post-meeting press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen downplayed the "dot" revisions, by noting that the median projections moved due to changes by only some Fed participants. But despite Yellen's soothing remarks, the financial markets did not interpret the revisions to be minor. The dollar strengthened by nearly 2%, and 10-year bond yields spiked by 20bps (Chart 1). These market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market - when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. Investors will note that in that cycle, the Fed's extended on hold period in 1993 had lulled bond investors into a false sense of complacency; investors were almost completely caught off-guard when tightening began in early February 1994 (Chart 2 and Chart 3). At the end of 1993, the market projected that the 3-month rate, the 10-year and the 30-year yield would be 4.3%, 6.2% and 6.5%, respectively, by the end of 1994. The actual yields at the end of 1994 turned out to be more than 130 basis points higher at 5.6%, 7.8% and 7.85%. From the trough in yields in September 1993 to the peak in November 1994, the Treasury index lost 5%. High-grade spread product, such as Agencies, MBS and investment-grade corporate bonds also suffered losses. The S&P 500 fell by about 9% in early 1994. Economic improvement was the main factor for the re-pricing of the Fed funds rate in 1994 (Chart 4). In the first half of the year, the unemployment rate declined 0.5% (from 6.6% to 6.1%) and monthly average payrolls were above 320,000! As the economy gained self-feeding momentum, the Fed steadily hiked interest rates, causing Treasuries and spread product to buckle. In fact, inflation did not go up but bond yields kept rising and the U.S. economy remained robust. The Mexican financial crisis in late 1994/early 1995, directly stemming from Fed tightening, marked the end of the Treasury bear and Fed restraint. Chart 21993 Complacency, 1994 Panic Chart 3Bond Market Is Still Behind Chart 41994 Economic Acceleration Fueled The Bond Bear All of this bears some resemblance to current conditions, albeit the level of growth today is much lower. Like early 1994, the economy now appears on the cusp of full employment (Chart 5). Most forecasters (including BCA) expect that growth will shift to an above-trend pace for at least a few quarters. And indeed, the debate has already shifted from deflation to the potential for inflation. To be sure, as we wrote last week, it takes a long time to change a prevailing mindset about inflation or deflation and it is unlikely that the Fed will find itself in a position to aggressively tighten against an inflation breakout over the next twelve months. But if GDP growth bucks the pattern of recent years in which first quarter growth disappointed expectations, then bond investors could begin to look for the exits more fervently. What is different this cycle than in 1994? For one thing, the Fed's communication strategy has drastically changed. Since 2012, the Fed has been publishing the "dot plot," a set of FOMC projections for inflation, GDP and the projected policy path. These projections serve as forward guidance about policy intent and in theory, should help smooth out any changes in market participants' expectations about the Fed's policy path and reduce the likelihood of overshoots in expectations. In addition, it seems likely that bonds are now more concentrated in "strong hands." One of the major concerns in 1994 was that retail investors, i.e. the household sector, piled into bonds at precisely the wrong time: throughout the 1980s, bond returns only marginally trailed that of equities and with far less volatility, lulling retail investors into believe bonds couldn't lose them money. Today, according to the BIS,2 around 40% of U.S. Treasuries are owned by the Federal Reserve and the foreign official sector. In addition, the BIS also posits that it is possible that pension funds (the third largest holders of Treasuries) and insurance companies may even benefit from rising rates in the medium term, as a normalized yield environment would allow them to more easily meet promised returns. This composition of ownership, in particular the Fed and foreign official investors - who are non-profit seeking entities, will not be forced to sell into a bear market. Chart 5On The Cusp Of Full Employment True, corporate bonds are now more heavily concentrated in the hands of private investors who seek yield and total return. The prospective price volatility of these securities may be much higher than an entire generation of fixed income investors' experience has taught them to expect. Finally, the U.S. dollar traded sideways from 1990-1993, and fell throughout 1994, which is very different from today. Currently, the policy feedback loop limits the degree to which the Fed can ultimately raise interest rates. This loop has been in place since last year: each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a selloff in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. Overall, there are mitigating factors that suggest that the current bond selloff will not be as violent as 1994. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. As expectations of economic growth improve, a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations will persist. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. We expect that bond selloffs over the next year will happen in fits and starts, as the feedback loop from the bond market and dollar to policy decisions repeats. The move in Treasury yields since mid-November has proceeded too quickly relative to the improvement in economic fundamentals and will pause in the near term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. However, we believe short duration positions will make money on a 2-3 year horizon. How Will Equities Cope? Apart from the 1994 episode, there have been three other major Fed tightening cycles since 1985 (Chart 6). In each case, the 10-year Treasury suffered an almost 10% or more annual loss, either following or just before short-term rates began their ascent. Investors underestimated the pace and extent of rate hikes every time and equity prices also faltered, at least temporarily. This was the case even when the Fed telegraphed a modest and steady 25 basis point-per-meeting pace of rate hikes from 2003 to 2006. The point is that even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Earnings-per-share growth is significantly lower today than in 1993, and the gap between trailing earnings growth and 12-month forward expectations is wide. This suggests that there is a greater risk of earnings disappointment than was the case in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, valuation is poor (Chart 6, bottom panel). Still, we concede that sentiment and technical indicators continue to favor near-term equity gains (Chart 7). Neither our technical nor our intermediate indicator is signalling danger (although both have rolled over). Only our monetary indicator is flashing a warning. The risk is that the longer the uptrend in stocks continues without interruption, the greater the payback will be should economic performance disappoint. Chart 6Fed Re-Entry Is Historically Tough Chart 7An Expensive And Risky Rally Animal Spirits Revival? In our view, the most notable development for the U.S. economy in recent weeks has been the impressive swing in confidence since the election in November. If sustained, the rise in confidence could propel growth to an above-trend pace as "animal spirits" are unleashed. We take this possibility seriously, since depressed confidence in the outlook was an important force capping the upside in growth earlier in the recovery. Nonetheless, this is not our base case, since we continue to believe that it is perilous to focus solely on the positive aspects of Trump's political agenda, while ignoring the more negative ones. This phenomenon seems to be borne out in the NFIB survey data. Although still low relative to past recoveries, optimism among small business owners improved drastically last month, according to the NFIB survey (Chart 8). The improvement was broad-based, showing gain in sales expectations, expansion plans and hiring intentions. But as the NFIB's chief economist pointed out, this surge in optimism is mainly due to businesses reacting favorably to Trump's platform of tax cuts and less regulation. In any case, the recent improvement in consumer confidence has not noticeably translated to improved consumer spending yet. Nominal retail sales eked out a tiny 0.1% m/m gain in November and the October data were revised lower. As we highlighted in a previous report, massive price discounting continues to be a factor pushing down nominal spending. Indeed, despite the potential for an upturn in inflation on the back of unconfirmed Trump policies, the current pricing environment remains tough. Core CPI rose only 0.2% in November, and the annual growth rate - at 2.1% - is lower than at the start of the year. Our diffusion index is below 50, meaning that more sub-components of the CPI are decelerating than accelerating (Chart 9). Chart 8Optimism Returning Chart 9Consumers Are Confident, Will They Spend? The overall message is that economic data continue to display a "two steps forward, one step backward" pattern. We expect growth momentum to gradually build and the economy can grow above trend next year. However, even once the output gap closes, it can take a long time for inflation pressures to build and for inflation expectations to move higher. Ultimately, this dynamic means that the Fed will have the scope to proceed slowly. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 This week's report is greatly inspired by our Special Report, "Reincarnation And Bond Vigilantes," February 5, 2013. 2 "A Paradigm Shift In Markets?," Bank For International Settlements (BIS), December 11, 2016 http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1612a.htm 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. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral and in line with our benchmark portfolio recommendation for equities. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with some improvements in the momentum and breadth & trend indicators. The monetary component, though less bullish for equities as it continued to weaken somewhat, is still in favorable territory for equities. However, on the cyclical front, the earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as real operating earnings are at a significant distance from positive economic expectations. Earnings momentum has also further deteriorated, based on an earnings diffusion index which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four economic and monetary variables such as oil prices (WTI), ISM Inventories, 10-year Treasury yields and 3-month T-bill rates. 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. However the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model have weakened, nearing critical levels which would surrender the preference for Treasuries in the near term. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current 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.

Highlights BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy team would like to wish our clients a healthy, happy and prosperous New Year. Portfolio Strategy The growth vs. value style bias is due for a bounce, but beyond the near run, the outlook has become more balanced. Stick with a small vs. large cap bias for the time being, but get ready to book profits if domestic wage inflation continues to accelerate. Buy into the health care facilities sell-off. Value is surfacing as profit margin pressures subside. Recent Changes S&P 1500 Health Care Facilities - Boost to overweight today. Downgrade Alert Growth vs. Value - Downgrade alert. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Stocks look poised to maintain their momentum-fueled march higher into yearend, seemingly impervious to potential profit backlash from tightening monetary conditions, a more hawkish Fed and/or overheating sentiment. Sellers are holding back in anticipation of lower tax rates next year. In fact, our Composite Sentiment Gauge has surged to extremely bullish levels (Chart 1). This gauge comprises surveys of traders, individuals and investment professional sentiment. Overtly bullish readings have been a reliable contrary indication of building tactical risks, although not foolproof. The broad market has returned nearly 80%, excluding dividends, since the beginning of 2012, and over 5% since election night in November. Lately, earnings expectations have increased their contribution to the market's return, but the vast majority of the gains over the last five years can be explained by multiple expansion. Soaring median industry price/sales ratios are consistent with lopsidedly optimistic sentiment (Chart 1). Now that the Fed has signaled its intention to steadily raise interest rates in 2017, a critical question is whether profits can take over the reins from liquidity as the main market driver, at least partially validating the valuation increase? On this front, our confidence level is low. Profit margins are steadily narrowing. Our profit margin proxy is not signaling any imminent relief (Chart 2). With labor costs rising, faster sales are needed to halt the squeeze. But U.S. dollar appreciation is a significant headwind to top-line performance, given that 45% of sales come from abroad. As hedges fall off, the impact on 2017 revenue will become increasingly meaningful. Corporate debt levels are disturbingly high, in absolute terms and as a share of GDP (Chart 2, bottom panel). If borrowing costs continue to climb, then it will be hard for companies to turn expansionist, potentially offsetting any benefit from a reduced tax rate. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to envision a robust rebound in corporate profits. Our confidence level would be higher if monetary conditions were still reflationary. Instead, our Reflation Gauge (RG), a combination of oil prices, Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar, has plummeted at its fastest rate ever (Chart 3)! The speed and ferociousness of the plunge underscores the economic need for a massive and imminent fiscal offset. Chart 1Sentiment Is Overheating Chart 2Stiff Headwinds For The Corporate Sector Chart 3Reflation Is Dead The RG leads both equity sentiment and the U.S. Economic Surprise Index (ESI, Chart 3). If economic activity begins to disappoint in the coming months, i.e. before any meaningful fiscal stimulus arrives, there is a window of risk for the equity market because valuations will narrow as optimism fades, especially in those sectors that have gone vertical since the U.S. election. Keep in mind, last week we showed that typical Fed tightening cycles augur well for non-cyclical sector relative performance on a 12 and 24 month horizon. Surprisingly, financials and utilities have also managed to at least keep pace with the broad market, with cyclical sectors lagging behind overall market returns. The bottom line is that a number of objective indicators are signaling that the post-election rally will hit turbulence, perhaps in the first quarter of the New Year. Investors would be well served from a cyclical perspective to take advantage of value creation in defensive sectors while reaping any windfalls received in deep cyclical sectors. Will Growth Vs. Value Recover? The sudden surge in the financials and industrials sector has caused a sharp correction in the growth vs. value (G/V) share price ratio. The scope of the move has been both powerful and unnerving, catching many off guard, including us. Is this the start of a value renaissance after nearly eight years of growth stock dominance? History shows that sustained rotations into the value complex require validation from strengthening global economic growth. We have shown in previous research that G/V share price momentum is negatively correlated with the growth in durable goods orders, house prices and profits, i.e. when these variables accelerate, growth underperforms value. By virtue of the improvement in our global PMI composite (Chart 4), it would be easy to conclude that value stocks are coming back in vogue. Financials, energy and industrials account for over 50% of the value composite. These sectors only comprise roughly 15% of the growth benchmark. In addition, the technology sector weighs in at one third of the growth index, while representing only 8% of the value cohort. In addition, consumer discretionary and health care also represent about the same weight as technology in the growth composite, but only contribute about half that in the value index. It is no wonder that rising bond yields and hopes for a fiscal stimulus bonanza have triggered such a violent G/V reaction. While we are sympathetic to this view, extrapolating the last six weeks to continue over the next six months is dangerous. Much of the Treasury yield advance has been driven by inflation expectations. Global real yields are up, but not by as much as share prices have discounted (Chart 5). That is not surprising, as the soaring U.S. dollar is a deflationary force, and heralds a sharp rebound in the G/V ratio (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4A Vicious Correction... Chart 5... That May Soon Reverse U.S. currency strength will make it difficult for developing economies to service large foreign debt obligations and could drain domestic liquidity if they are forced to sell foreign exchange reserves to defend their currencies. It is notable that EM capital spending is virtually nil in real terms, and their share prices are underperforming the global benchmark by a wide margin (Chart 5). Our Global Economic Diffusion Index has crested (Chart 5, shown inverted), perhaps picking up emerging market sluggishness. Unless the U.S. dollar begins to weaken, it is premature to forecast robust economic growth in the coming quarters, thereby raising some skepticism about the durability of the value stock rebound. The objective message from our Cyclical Macro Indicators for the growth vs. value style is slowly shifting from bullish to neutral, and the pricing power advantage no longer exists (Chart 6). However, the latter is an unwinding of the rate of change shock in the commodity complex rather than renewed demand-driven pricing power gains in the deep cyclical space. From a longer-term perspective, growth stocks should stay well supported by the increase in long-term earnings growth expectations (Chart 7). When the latter are rising, growth stocks tend to enjoy multiple expansion relative to value shares. Moreover, if equity volatility perks up on uncertainty over the path and pace of future fiscal policy and a more hawkish Fed, then growth stocks should receive another source of natural support. The VIX and G/V indices tend to correlate positively over time (Chart 7). Chart 6Mixed Signals Chart 7Structural Supports In sum, choosing value over growth is not a slam dunk, nor is forecasting a recovery to new highs in the G/V ratio given the large sector weightings discrepancies. Rather, a reflex rally in the G/V ratio is probable as post-election financials/industrials sector enthusiasm wanes, with a lateral move thereafter. Bottom Line: We will likely recommend moving to a neutral style bias over the coming weeks/months from our current growth vs. value stance, but expect to do so from a position of strength. A Revival In Small Business Animal Spirits? A broad-based and powerful rotation into small caps has occurred, as all the major small cap sectors have surged relative to their large cap counterparts (Chart 8), flattering our current stance. Small caps fit nicely into one of our overriding longer-term themes, namely favoring domestic over global industries. Small companies are typically domestically-geared regardless of geography, underscoring that if anti-globalization trends pick up steam, this theme could gain traction around the world. The potential for U.S. corporate tax cuts has provided another source of domestic company enthusiasm, because multinationals already have low effective tax rates. However, these developments are not assured, details remain scant, and chasing small cap relative performance on that basis alone could be a mistake from a tactical perspective. We have noted that we would recommend profit taking if evidence of a reversal in the small vs. large cap profit outlook materialized. Recent labor market and pricing power data are slightly worrying. The NFIB survey of the small business sector showed that planned labor compensation is still diverging markedly from the overall employment cost index (Chart 9, second panel). While reported price changes have also nudged higher, the discrepancy in labor cost gauges may be signaling that the massive profit margin gap between small and large companies will not be quick to close (Chart 9, bottom panel). Still, the overall NFIB survey was strong, and suggests that animal spirits in the small business sector may finally be reawakening (Chart 10, second panel). The latter may reflect an easing in worries about government red tape, excessive bureaucracy and health care costs. Chart 8Broad-based Small Cap Outperformance Chart 9Yellow Flag For Margins Chart 10Overbought, But Not Overvalued These sentiment shifts may allow extremely overbought technical conditions for the relative share price ratio to persist for a while longer (Chart 10, middle panel), particularly if the Trump honeymoon phase for the overall market lasts until early in the New Year. Importantly, there is no meaningful valuation roadblock at the moment (Chart 10). From a longer-term perspective, however, it is notable that the share price ratio is trading well above one standard deviation from its mean. Such a stretched technical level warns against getting too comfortable with small caps. In fact, the share price ratio is tracing out a pattern similar to the early-1980s (Chart 11), when it enjoyed a brief run to new highs in 1983 on the back of similar aspirations of meaningful fiscal thrust and as the U.S. dollar sprang higher. However, that surge was short-lived and in hindsight, was a blow-off top that marked the beginning of a massive underperformance phase. Chart 11The Big Picture Bottom Line: Stick with a small/large cap bias for now, but get ready to take profits if the relative profit margin outlook does not soon improve. Buy Into Health Care Facilities Weakness Rapid sub-surface market gyrations are creating attractive value in a number of areas, particularly in the defensive health care sector. In particular, we downshifted our view on the S&P health care facilities index at mid-year, because consumer spending on health care was decelerating, which favored moving into equities that paid for medical services (managed care) vs. those that provided them. While that trend remains intact, health care facilities stocks appear to be discounting an extreme scenario. The current concern is that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be repealed, leaving hospitals to foot the bill for uninsured patients. While such a scenario would potentially reverse the decline in the provision for doubtful accounts (PDA, Chart 12), a major profit margin support, the ACA is more likely to be reworked than repealed especially in the absence of a replacement plan. Importantly, there are other offsets. PDA follows the unemployment rate, which is signaling that the former will decline further. Hospital cost inflation is beginning to recede, led by drug costs (Chart 12). Physician services costs and inflation in other medical supplies is also subsiding. Health care facilities have also reduced capital spending in a bid to protect profit margins. Construction data show that hospitals have eased back on the throttle significantly (Chart 13). A shift to a profit margin preservation mentality is confirmed by the sharp reduction in headcount growth and decline in total wage inflation (Chart 13). Labor cost control provides another positive profit margin support, over and above the fillip from the reacceleration in hospital pricing power (Chart 13). Consumers are allocating an increasing portion of their spending to hospitals, which provides confidence that pricing power gains will stick. It would take massive earnings downgrades to validate the pessimism embedded in current valuations (Chart 14). Technical conditions argue that the sell-off is overshooting. The share price ratio has made new lows, but cyclical momentum is diverging positively. Given that this group is traditionally a strong U.S. dollar winner (Chart 14, top panel), there is scope for a playable relative performance rally in the coming six months. Chart 12Hospital Costs Are Easing... Chart 13... While Sales Improve Chart 14Dirt Cheap Bottom Line: Augment the S&P 1500 health care facilities index (BLBG: S15HCFA - HCA, UHS, WOOF, HLS, LPNT, SEM, SCAI, THC, ENSG, USPH, KND, CYH, QHC) to overweight. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights Dear Client, This week's BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy features our 2017 Outlook for the Gold market. We will address the other precious metals markets early in the New Year. We model gold as a currency. While fundamental data - supply, demand and inventories - are important, they do not drive gold prices. Gold has been our window on market expectations for Fed policy, given it is highly sensitive to the central bank's preferred inflation gauge - the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) core index (ex food and energy prices) - and the evolution of key variables driven by Fed actions: the broad trade-weighted dollar (USD, in our usage), and 5- and 10-year real rates. Gold prices also are highly sensitive to broad macroeconomic variables - e.g., U.S. real wages and EM income growth. In addition to behaving like a currency, gold has continuing appeal to investors as a safe haven, particularly in turbulent markets and especially outside a deflationary context. Our research confirms gold provides an excellent portfolio hedge against inflation - particularly vs. core PCE inflation. Before getting to our gold outlook, a housekeeping note: We are closing our long Dec/17 WTI futures vs. short Dec/18 WTI futures basis Tuesday's mark-to-market value of $0.89/bbl for an indicated profit 493.3% (vs. the $0.15/bbl level at which we opened the position). We put the position on as the market was correcting from its earlier rally, just before the Saudi oil minister made his "whatever it takes" remarks in Vienna on Saturday. We also are closing our long 2017Q1 natural gas position as of Tuesday's mark-to-market close for an indicated profit of 16.3%. We remain bullish the backwardation trade and will look for opportunities to re-set the position on sell-offs in the front of the curve. We also remain bullish U.S. natural gas near-term, we expect U.S. production growth to resume next year. We trust you will find this week's report useful going into the New Year. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Managing Editor Feature Precious Metals: What Is Gold Pricing To? After falling some 16% from its recent high of $1,374/oz, gold appears to have found support just above $1,150/oz as the year winds down. Part of this sell-off no doubt was induced by investors liquidating ETFs and futures ahead of yesterday's FOMC meeting, where the Fed, as expected, raised its overnight rate 25 basis points (Chart 1). Even before the Fed's rate hike yesterday, which markets were pricing in with near 100% certainty (Chart 1, bottom panel), monetary conditions had been tightening going into the FOMC meeting; The broad trade-weighted USD was up some 7% since the bottoming for the year in May, while the St. Louis Fed's 5-year 5-year forward inflation expectation rate was up almost 70 basis points (at 2.09%) since bottoming in June. The other part of gold's price evolution reflects uncertainty surrounding U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, particularly as markets grope for insight on the fiscal policies that will be pursued by the incoming Trump administration. In addition to their direct implications for U.S. economic growth, these policy decisions will profoundly influence EM growth, which is the critical variable for commodity prices generally. Unsurprisingly, the combination of increasing financial stress brought about by contracting monetary conditions, and policy uncertainty emanating from the U.S. has lifted gold volatility (Chart 2). Chart 1Gold Corrects Chart 2Increasing Financial Stress ##br##Pulls Gold Volatility Higher The tightening of financial conditions likely will, over the short-term, induce a slowing in economic growth at the margin going into 2017Q1, which will, all else equal, cause the USD to weaken, according to our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service.1 In addition, it likely will cause U.S. interest rates to retreat, consistent with our House view. Short-term, both of these effects should be bullish gold, which is why we're recommending investors go tactically long if prices retrace to $1,150/oz (see below). Forming A Strategic View On Gold Becomes More Difficult The proximate cause of the heightened risk in financial markets that is showing up in gold volatility is the uncertainty surrounding U.S. monetary and fiscal policy next year in the U.S., and an increasingly fragmented commercial and political backdrop globally. Forming a longer term view on gold is difficult, given the huge amount of incomplete economic information available to markets, much of which will only become clear over the next quarter or two. There are, of course, a host of geopolitical risks - i.e., the types of risk investors typically use gold to hedge against - but we will leave those assessments to our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service.2 The incoming U.S. presidential administration has promised greater fiscal stimulus, which is bullish for growth, and, at the same time, has signaled its hostility to the Fed. On the back of higher growth expectations - overlaid against a labor market in the U.S. that is close to full employment - inflation expectations are rising. This is coloring interest-rate expectations - particularly the path for real rates - and contributing to the strengthening of the USD. Among risk factors, these three - higher inflation, a stronger USD and rising real rates - rank at the top of most investors' hierarchies, regardless of how they allocate. Realistically, it will take time for the incoming Trump administration to draft the legislation that deploys fiscal stimulus - at least six months. It will then take even more time to see this legislation have effect. Given this reality, we agree with the assessment of our colleagues on the FX and bond desks that key U.S. monetary variables - chiefly the USD and real rates - have moved too far too fast, and likely will correct. The increased inflation expectations we've seen in the forward markets, however, probably are warranted. Going Tactically Long, Expecting Higher Inflation Chart 3Fiscal Stimulus Will Lift Real Wages,##br## Then Core PCE Given this expectation, we believe the correction in gold was warranted. We will get tactically long spot gold at tonight's close, with a stop loss of 5%. This will position us for what we believe will be a strategic opportunity to be long gold once U.S. fiscal policy comes into focus. With the U.S. at or close to full employment, we expect the fiscal stimulus introduced next year - tax cuts, deregulation, increased defense spending, and more money for infrastructure - to provide a significant boost to the economy beginning in 2017H2. This will, we believe, result in stronger wage growth, which will lead to higher inflation. All else equal, this will lift core PCE (Chart 3): Our modeling indicates a 1% increase in real U.S. nonfarm wages translates into a 0.62% increase in core PCE.3 As good as this sounds, we have to account for the Fed's likely response. Presently, we expect two rate hikes next year. Depending on how strong growth comes in, we might even get a third hike in the Fed funds rate next year, as Fed Chair Yellen suggested at her press conference yesterday. If, as we expect, the USD corrects over the short term, this would imply another rally in the dollar next year, as markets once again price in a tighter U.S. monetary policy against a backdrop of global monetary accommodation. The big unknown is how far out ahead of the expected inflation increase the Fed will get vis-à-vis its interest-rate policy. If Janet Yellen and her colleagues decide to allow the economy to run hot, and keep monetary policy "behind the curve" - i.e., slowly raise real rates while the economy is expanding and inflation is increasing - that will be bullish for gold. If, on the other hand, the Fed wants to get out "ahead of the curve" - i.e., raise rates in anticipation of higher inflation before it actually materializes - that would be bearish. We believe the Fed will err on the side of allowing the economy to run hot and will keep monetary policy "behind the curve" next year, and most likely in 2018. So, in addition to core PCE picking up, we would expect the USD to rise, but not by as much as it would if the Fed were more aggressive in its policy stance. Most important for commodity markets, we believe real rates will not surge ahead with the Fed continuing to maintain a relatively accommodative policy. This is a bullish backdrop for gold. But it's not enough to compel us to get long strategically. Why We Won't Go All-In On Gold Chart 4A Relatively Accommodative ##br##Fed Will Be Bullish For Gold We believe the Fed will err on the side of continued relative accommodation for two reasons: The U.S. central bank will be restrained by the continued massive accommodation of other systemically important central banks - i.e., it cannot unilaterally tighten policy too aggressively in a world where accommodation reigns: It would send the USD through the roof and kill off whatever expansion the U.S. could muster under the Trump administration's fiscal policy. The Fed's core PCE inflation target is symmetric, with an indicated target level of 2% p.a. change. For the past 20 years, the average p.a. change in core PCE has been 1.7%. The Fed can allow inflation to overshoot for years before the symmetry of its target is violated: Among other things, this would allow the Fed to further distance itself from the zero lower bound on interest rates, which appears to be a goal of many of the central bankers. Our modeling suggests that if the Fed remains behind the curve as inflation is increasing gold prices could appreciate substantially after the expected U.S. fiscal stimulus kicks in. A 1% increase in core PCE translates into an increase in gold prices exceeding 4%. A 1% decrease in real rates implies a 6% increase in gold prices. And a 1% decrease in the USD translates to close to a 3% increase in gold prices (Chart 4).4 We're comfortable with a short-term gold position, but we are not ready to go all-in on gold as a strategic allocation at present because we do not know what to expect from the incoming Trump administration in terms of fiscal policy initiatives. Nor do we know whether the president-elect will assume office openly hostile to the sitting Fed Chair, Dr. Yellen. Trump has indicated dissatisfaction with her leadership of the Fed, and has indicated he will not reappoint her when her term is up, given the accommodation the Fed pursued while she was in charge. If the relationship becomes acrimonious while she continues to run the Fed, the independence of the Fed may come under question, and the coherence of policy might be placed in doubt. An openly hostile relationship between the U.S. chief executive and the head of the country's independent central bank will make it difficult to form macro expectations, particularly around gold prices. Perhaps such uncertainty would improve gold's appeal as a safe-haven, which would keep the metal bid in the event of such an outcome. Of course, the next logical question would be, who would Trump appoint to replace Yellen? If his beef with the central bank was that policy was too accommodative, does that mean he's likely to appoint a more hawkish Chair when Yellen's term is up? If so, this would be decidedly bearish gold and commodities in general. Hence the inability to take a clear position strategically. EM Growth Will React To U.S. Policy, And Affect Gold What happens in Washington doesn't stay in Washington. Fed policy is extremely important for EM growth, which has been picking up recently (Chart 5). The global driver of increasing commodity demand - and U.S. core PCE - has been EM income growth (Chart 6), which we proxy using non-OECD oil consumption and world base metals demand, given 50% of base metals demand comes from China.5 Chart 5EM Growth At Risk ##br##If Fed Gets Aggressive Chart 6EM Oil and Base Metals Demand##br## Highly Correlated With U.S. Core PCE Too aggressive a policy stance by the Fed - e.g., getting too far out "ahead of the curve" - would suffocate EM income growth by encouraging capital flight and increasing the burden of USD-denominated debt in those countries. Bottom Line: We are recommending a tactically long gold position, given our expectation the USD and interest rates will correct after moving too far too fast in anticipation of stronger U.S. economic growth following the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. Although we do expect significant stimulus from the incoming administration's to-be-announced fiscal policies will stoke inflation going forward - especially with the U.S. economy at or close to full employment - we are uncomfortable going strategically long gold until we gain greater clarity on these policies. In addition, we await a clear signal on the sort of relationship the executive office will have with the Fed. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy "Cyclical And Tactical Divergences," dated December 9, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook "Strategy Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Real nonfarm hourly compensation follows the same long-term trend as core PCE - i.e., these variables are cointegrated. The adjusted-R2 for the cointegrating regression is 0.99. 4 This is a long-term estimate (2000 to present). The adjusted-R2 for the cointegrating regression using these inputs is 0.95. Of course, if the Fed gets out "ahead of the curve" these effects will work in the opposite direction: Increasing real rates, falling core PCE and a stronger USD will militate against any price appreciation. 5 We have noted in previous research that oil and base metals demand frequently are used to approximate EM income growth, given the income elasticity of demand for these commodities approaches 1.0. The OECD notes, "Non-OECD countries are found to have a higher income elasticity of oil demand than OECD countries. On average across countries, a one per cent rise in real GDP pushes up oil demand by half a per cent in OECD countries over the medium to long run, whereas the figure is closer to unity for most non-OECD countries." Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). The evolution of these real EM demand variables shares a common trend with U.S. money supply (M2), real rates in the U.S., and the trade-weighted USD. In addition, these real variables also are highly correlated with EM exchange rates, as is to be expected. Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Memo TO Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," dated August 4, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights This week we elaborate on the issues that we believe will be critical to investors going into 2017: Feature 1. Is China beginning to export inflation? Not yet. As long as the RMB depreciates faster than the rate of domestic inflation, China will be exporting deflation to the rest of the world. 2. Is the selloff in so-called search-for-yield beneficiaries over? Most likely not. There is still meaningful upside in global bond yields as well as downside in prices of bond proxies and search-for-yield beneficiaries. 3. Will China recover or will it have another growth slump in 2017? China's industrial cycle will be topping out in the next couple of months and will relapse thereafter. 4. Will strong U.S./DM growth lift EM economies in 2017? Not really. EM will continue to be driven by its domestic credit cycle and commodities prices. If anything, higher U.S. interest rates and a strong U.S. dollar are bearish for both the EM credit cycle and commodities prices. Overall, we expect EM stocks, currencies, credit markets and domestic bonds to sell off and underperform their U.S./DM peers well into 2017. Is China Beginning To Export Inflation? With various inflation measures in China rising (Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B), the key question is whether China will soon export inflation rather than deflation to the rest of the world. Chart I-1AInflation In RMB Terms, ##br##Deflation In USD Terms Chart I-1BInflation In RMB Terms, ##br##Deflation In USD Terms Investors often confuse domestic inflation in China with China exporting inflation beyond its borders. The missing link is the exchange rate. Because of the yuan's depreciation, China is still exporting deflation, even though its domestic inflation rate is rising. Specifically: Chinese core consumer price inflation, consumer services inflation and ex-factory producer price inflation are all negative in U.S. dollar terms even though they are accelerating in local currency terms (Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B). Importantly, Chinese export prices and U.S. import prices from China are deflating in U.S. dollar terms but rising in RMB terms (Chart I-2). A rise in input costs in China has, so far, not translated into higher U.S. dollar prices of mainland goods shipped overseas. The reason is that the RMB's depreciation has allowed export companies to reduce U.S. dollar prices while receiving more RMBs per a unit. In China, labor compensation and unit labor costs are rising much faster in RMB terms than in U.S. dollar terms due to the currency's depreciation (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Chinese Export Prices ##br##Are Not Rising In USD Terms Chart I-3Chinese Unit Labor Costs ##br##Are Rising In RMB But Not In USD Income per capita (a proxy for employee compensation) is growing at an annual rate of 8% in nominal RMB terms, 6% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms and 2.5% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-4). Hence, the RMB's depreciation over the past year has reduced the pace of labor cost increases to Chinese producers in U.S. dollar terms. This has allowed producers to tolerate lower selling prices in U.S. dollars. Finally, there is thus far no evidence worldwide that tradable manufacturing goods (non-commodities) prices are rising. Specifically, Korean and Taiwanese export prices as well as manufactured export goods prices in Mexico have stabilized but are not yet rising (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Income Growth: ##br##Nominal, Real Terms & In USD Chart I-5Global Manufacturing ##br##Goods Prices: No Inflation Yet Bottom Line: Even though domestic price inflation has risen, China's export prices are still falling in U.S. dollar terms. The exchange rate is the key: As and if the RMB depreciates much further - and we expect it to depreciate 12% versus the greenback and to reach USD/CNH 7.8 by the end of 2017 - China will still be exporting deflation to the rest of the world. Is The Selloff In Search-For-Yield Beneficiaries Over? The selloff in so-called search-for-yield beneficiaries - trades that have in recent years benefited from a low interest rate environment globally - will likely persist in the first few months of 2017. Back in July,1 we argued that U.S./DM bond yields were set to rise considerably. Currently, we still expect bond yields to climb further. We believe there is still prevailing investor complacency about U.S./global bond yields as well as bond proxies elsewhere. U.S. bond yields in general, and inflation-adjusted (TIPS) yields in particular, are still very depressed and could rise meaningfully (Chart I-6). There is no reason why 5- and 10-year TIPS yields cannot reach their late 2015 levels - a move of about 30-50 basis points from current levels. At the moment, the market is pricing only 52 basis points in Federal Reserve rate hikes in 2017. This is not enough as animal spirits are rising in America at a time when the labor market is tight, and wages and unit labor costs are accelerating. All of this combined warrants meaningfully higher U.S. bond yields. Critically, in recent years a lot of money has flown into funds that invest in bonds and bond proxies. As U.S. bond yields rise, it is natural to expect some outflows from these funds. Odds are that these outflows could occur in January when many investors review their portfolios. Bond proxies such U.S. dividend aristocrat stocks, U.S. REITs, utilities and telecom share prices have barely corrected. EM local currency bond yield spreads over duration-matched U.S. Treasurys have not widened at all (Chart I-7, top panel). This does not make sense, as EM local bonds have benefited substantially from the so-called global search-for-yield of the past several years, and thereby should suffer meaningfully as U.S. bond yields are rising. Besides, EM currencies have weakened, and their outlook is worrisome.2 In fact, the EM local currency bond index has massively underperformed duration-matched U.S. Treasurys in common currency terms, and will likely continue to do so in the next six months (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Asian corporate spreads in general, and Chinese offshore corporate spreads in particular, have not widened yet (Chart I-8, top panel). More importantly, Chinese offshore corporate spreads over sovereigns have continued to narrow, and now stand at only 65 basis points (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In sum, there has so far been little setback in Asia/China credit markets. Chart I-6U.S. TIPS ##br##Yields Are Too Low Chart I-7EM Local Currency Bond ##br##Yields To Rise Much Further Chart I-8Asian And Chinese ##br##Corporate Spreads Are Too Low It would be strange if after years of blind search-for-yield there is no meaningful retrenchment in search-for-yield beneficiaries as U.S. bond yields shoot up. Finally, the S&P 500 is making new highs, indicating U.S. bond yields have not yet become restrictive. Odds are that U.S. bond yields will continue to rise until they hurt economic growth or the S&P 500. In other words, bond yields will likely overshoot before rolling over. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for U.S. bond yields remains up. Hence, the current selloff in global bonds, bond proxies and search-for-yield beneficiaries will continue. China: Another Growth Slump In 2017? From our investor meetings on both the east and west coasts of the U.S. over the past month, we got a sense that investor sentiment toward China has improved considerably. While many U.S. investors are not upbeat about China's long-term outlook, the majority have seemingly become complacent on mainland growth for 2017. The common viewpoint is that ahead of Communist party leadership changes at the Party Congress next fall, the authorities will ensure that growth conditions remain very firm. As a result, the reasoning goes that China-related plays will do well in 2017. The missing point, however, is that Chinese policymakers have lately been marginally tightening liquidity/credit conditions amid the lingering credit bubble, and are no longer easing policy. On a rate-of-change basis, this policy stance no longer supports growth acceleration. On the contrary, it warrants a top-out in the nation's industrial cycle in early 2017 and probably a slowdown later in 2017. Chart I-9Interbank Liquidity Tightening In China Not only have Chinese corporate bond yields climbed alongside rising global bond yields, but the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has also tightened liquidity in the interbank market for non-bank financial institutions (Chart I-9). This is intended to limit speculative activities among non-bank financial organizations (shadow banking). This policy move is consistent with PBoC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's statement this past October at the annual World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington, namely: "With the gradual recovery of the global economy, China will control its credit growth."3 As U.S. and European growth is firming up, Chinese policymakers will be emboldened to moderate unsustainable credit growth and not repeat the massive fiscal push of early this year. In a bid to curb excessive bank credit growth and discourage "window dressing" accounting, the PBoC announced in late October that going forward it will include off-balance-sheet wealth management products (WMPs) in the calculation of banks' quarterly Macro Prudential Assessment ratios, starting from the third quarter.4 The clampdown on WMP accounting will reduce banks' capital adequacy ratios, curbing their ability to originate loans. Finally, property market tightening measures implemented of late are expected to lead to a slowdown in sales and renewed contraction in property starts. This will depress Chinese construction and demand for industrial commodities/materials as well as capital goods. Notably, both credit and fiscal impulses in China have already peaked over (Chart I-10). With no major new fiscal spending initiatives and credit growth gradually moderating, the credit and fiscal impulses will likely diminish. Chart I-11 illustrates that the recovery in industrial electricity consumption (a reliable proxy for industrial activity), industrial profits and manufacturing PMI since early this year has been largely due to combined credit and fiscal impulses. As these impulses wane, the industrial cycle will roll over. Chart I-10China: Credit And Fiscal ##br##Impulses Have Petered Out Chart I-11China: Industrial Sector ##br##Growth To Peter Out In Early 2017 Some clients may wonder why we are placing so much emphasis on the pending rollover of credit and fiscal impulses now, while placing little emphasis on these same indicators in early in 2016 when they were recovering. The rationale is as follows: when there is a credit bubble - as there is in China now - we tend to downplay the importance of policy easing and put more significance on policy tightening. The opposite also holds true: when the credit/banking system is healthy, we tend to downplay the impact of moderate policy tightening and put greater emphasis on policy easing. In a credit bubble, it does not take much tightening to trigger a downtrend/unwind of excesses. Similarly, moderate tightening in a healthy credit system should not be feared. While base metals prices have surged, tracking improvement in China's industrial sector, there is little evidence that the magnitude of this rally is justified by improvement in underlying demand. Chart I-12 demonstrates that China's imports of base metals have been flat since 2010, with all swings due to inventory cycles. The mainland's iron ore consumption has also been mediocre since late 2014 (Chart I-12, bottom panel). The recent rally in copper and other base metals prices is somewhat, though not entirely, due to financial demand. Chart I-13 reveals that commercial firms (producers) have been selling (shorting) copper while financial investors (non-commercial enterprises) have been buying according to data from Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Copper prices are now sitting at their long-term moving average that often marks tops in bear market rallies and bottoms in bull market selloffs (Chart I-13, bottom panel). We expect copper prices to face a major resistance at their current levels, and relapse sooner than later. The U.S. consumes about seven times less copper and other industrial metals compared with China. Therefore, acceleration in U.S. growth and capital spending will be more than offset by a renewed slump in Chinese growth. Several Chinese and China-related financial markets are at a critical juncture (Chart I-14). Their breakdown from current levels will confirm our bias that China's industrial cycle will enter another slump in 2017. Chart I-12China: Net Imports Of Industrial ##br##Metals And Iron Ore Consumption Chart I-13Copper Rally Is Driven ##br##By Financial Demand Chart I-14China Related Plays ##br##Are At A Critical Juncture Bottom Line: China's industrial/capital spending cycle will peter out and will decelerate again in 2017. Will Strong DM Growth Lift EM Economies? Strengthening/robust growth in the U.S. and other developed economies will not be sufficient to lift EM growth. First, in the 1997-98 period, real GDP growth was 4.5% in the U.S. and 3.5% in Europe. In particular, U.S. import volume growth was booming at a double-digit pace (Chart I-15) yet it did not prevent widespread crises throughout the EM during this period. In a nutshell, these 1997-98 crises occurred amid plunging U.S./DM bond yields. Chart I-15The U.S. Growth/Import Boom In 1997-98 Did Not Preclude EM Crises Given the economic boom and falling bond yields in the U.S. and Europe did not prevent the 1997-98 EM financial crises, strong U.S./DM growth now is unlikely to help developing countries much. The importance of U.S. and European economies to EM has declined tremendously since the late 1990s, while the importance of China and intra-EM trade has grown. U.S. import volumes have been weak the past 12 months and will likely recover in 2017, yet this will not be enough to prevent an EM growth slump. The EM crises in 1997-98 were due to poor EM fundamentals and the latter are not much better now. Second, EM growth is primarily driven by the domestic credit cycle and commodities prices. We are bearish on both. Chart I-16 shows EM EPS growth and the aggregate EM credit impulse with projections. Assuming credit growth in each individual EM country converges with its nominal GDP growth in the next 12 months, and in China's case in the next 24 months, the 2017 projected EM credit impulse (equity market cap-weighted) will be negative. Historically, the credit impulse has been a good indicator for EPS (Chart I-16).5 Chart I-16EM EPS Growth To Relapse Again In 2017 In short, EM EPS will improve in the near-term but relapse later in 2017. Share prices are forward looking and their rally early this year is probably already discounting near-term EPS improvement. Thereby, EM share prices are at risk at the moment. Third, real capital spending (inflation-adjusted) in EM ex-China and China is as large as the U.S. and EU (Chart I-17). As the capital spending downturn in China and the rest of EM persists (Chart I-18), this will offset any capex recovery in DM and weigh on commodities, primarily industrial metals, as well as global machinery stocks. Chart I-17Capital Spending By Regions: ##br##EM/China As Large As U.S. And EU Chart I-18EM Ex-China Capex ##br##Has Been Contracting Bottom Line: EM growth will disappoint and EM listed companies' EPS will continue shrinking in 2017, despite the likely profit improvement in the very near term. 2017: The Beginning Of The End Of The EM Bear? Chart I-19 illustrates that this relative equity bear market in EM versus DM is getting late from a duration standpoint. That said, the magnitude of this bear market has been smaller compared with the previous one. Although we do not expect EM stocks to underperform as much as they did in the previous cycle, we still believe there is sizable downside in the months ahead. In short, EM share prices appear very vulnerable technically (Chart I-20), and will likely relapse in absolute terms and also underperform DM markets. Investors should stay short/underweight EM equities versus DM. Chart I-19The EM Bear Market Is Late But Not Over Chart I-20EM Stocks Are Technically Vulnerable For dedicated EM equity investors, our overweights are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. EM bank stocks hold the key, and their underperformance versus DM banks has further to run. Maintain the short EM banks / long U.S. banks equity position. EM currencies will depreciate further (odds of new lows are considerable for many of them) and local currency bonds will sell off. In our November 30 Weekly Report,6 we discussed the outlooks for EM local bond markets and exchange rates at great length, and offered asset allocation recommendations across EM local bond markets. EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen versus U.S. corporate spreads. Stay underweight EM credit markets. Within EM sovereign credit, our overweights are Russia, Mexico and Argentina, Hungary, Peru and other defensive credit. In turn, our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. As usual, the complete list of our equity, fixed-income and currency recommendations is available at the end of each week's report (please refer to pages 16 and 17). Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Reports, dated July 13 and July 27, 2016; available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " Will The Carnage In EM Local Bonds Persist?," dated November 30, 2016; a link is available on page 18. 3 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3155686/index.html 4 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3183204/index.html 5 For more details, please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses," dated August 31, 2016; a link is available on page 18. 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " Will The Carnage In EM Local Bonds Persist?," dated November 30, 2016; a link is available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights ECB Policy: The European Central Bank (ECB) bought time for Euro Area inflation to sustainably move higher by extending the duration, and removing some of the self-imposed limits, on its bond buying program. The higher aggregate amount of monetary stimulus to be delivered in 2017 was an easing, not a taper. This should support a relative outperformance of core European bond markets next year. Treasury-Bund Spread: Growth and inflation divergences between the U.S. and Euro Area have pushed the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds to the highest levels since the late 1980s. Those divergences will begin to narrow later in 2017, but not before the Treasury-Bund spread widens further. Maintain an above-benchmark stance on core Europe versus the U.S. in hedged global bond portfolios. Italy: Global bond portfolio managers and traders should underweight Italian bonds versus hedged global benchmarks and Spanish Bonos. A risk premium will continue to build into Italian bonds over the course of 2017, as political gridlock and insufficient structural improvements will plague this economy for the next few years. Feature "Chart of the WeekA Taper? What Taper? We seem to be fairly far away from any such high-class problem." - Mario Draghi That comment was made after last week's European Central Bank (ECB) policy meeting in Frankfurt, when ECB President Draghi was asked if a tapering of the central bank's bond purchase program could occur in response to stronger European economic data. Draghi's pointed-yet-cynical response goes a long way in highlighting the ECB's current thinking. Conclusion: it is too soon to take away the morphine from the sick patient that is the Euro Area economy. The ECB decided to prolong its asset purchase program deep into 2017, and even longer if necessary. The decision was backed by the new set of ECB growth and inflation projections, which showed that Euro Area inflation is no longer expected to sustainably return to the ECB's 2% target by 2019 - a move that we had anticipated.1 Admittedly, we had also thought that there would be no change in the size of the monthly bond purchases, but the ECB did announce a reduction in the pace of bond buying back to €60bn per month. While some have called this a "taper", as fewer bonds will be bought each month, we take the opposite view, as the total aggregate amount of bonds to be purchased in 2017 was higher than market expectations. Last week's decision was an easing by the ECB that should allow core European bond yields to remain subdued relative to rising yields in the U.S. and elsewhere (Chart of the Week). Even Draghi himself stated that this move was not a taper, which he defined as a signal that bond purchases would eventually be lowered down to zero. The ECB's decision is a rare piece of bullish news in the current bear phase for developed market bonds. After all, by pushing out the earliest date when the tapering of asset purchases could begin, and by also not committing to a taper if European inflation continues to languish, the ECB can limit the damage to bonds from rising term premiums amid a worsening demand/supply balance for global fixed income. But with expectations for both global growth and inflation continuing to improve, the cyclical forces underpinning the recent bond rout remain in place. While we are currently recommending a tactical neutral duration stance while bond markets consolidate the latest rapid rise in yields, we continue to see core Europe outperforming during the next leg of the global bond bear phase in 2017. This is especially true versus U.S. Treasuries, which will continue to be battered by stronger growth expectations, rising inflation, Fed rate hikes and the ongoing threat of aggressive fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration. "Low-Flation" Remains The ECB's Biggest Problem The consensus expectation was that the ECB bond buying program would be extended by six months to September 2017, but that the amount of purchases would be maintained at €80bn per month. The ECB delivered an extension of nine months to December 2017 but at a slower monthly pace of €60bn. The simple math suggests that the ECB delivered a bigger monetary stimulus than expected: €540bn (9 months times €60bn) vs €480bn (6 times €80bn). That may sound like an overly simplistic interpretation, but European financial markets certainly reacted as if the ECB decision was a monetary easing with a weaker Euro, higher equities and steeper government bond yield curves. The ECB is clearly puzzled as to why European inflation remains so stubbornly low. After all, a 50% rise in energy prices denominated in Euros over the past year should be enough to get headline Euro Area inflation back up to 2% (Chart 2). Draghi noted during the post-meeting press conference that the ECB was "not seeing yet any effect" of the rapid rise in oil prices in 2016 on underlying non-energy inflation - a point confirmed by the sideways move in core CPI and services inflation in the Euro Area (middle panel). The surge in oil, combined with the prolonged weakness of the Euro, has been enough to put a floor under inflation expectations. Draghi cited this as a key reason for the reduction in the monthly pace of bond purchases. With key measures of inflation expectations like the 5-year Euro Area CPI swap rate, 5-years forward no longer showing persistently low readings (bottom panel), the ECB can credibly decide to buy fewer bonds per month since, in Draghi's words, "the risk of deflation has largely disappeared." The other issue that the ECB addressed was the notion that it was "running out of bonds" to buy in the asset purchase program due to the rising share of the European bond market that is trading with a yield below the ECB's deposit rate of -0.4%. The backup in global yields since mid-year has helped mitigate that problem to some degree, given the 10% reduction in the share of European government bonds now trading with a negative yield (Chart 3). Chart 2Underwhelming European Inflation Chart 3Fewer Bonds With Negative Yields The ECB also addressed the bond shortage issue more directly by making two additional changes to the asset purchase program. First, it reduced the minimum remaining maturity of eligible bonds from 2 years to 1 year. Second, it agreed to buy bonds with yields below the previous -0.4% floor, if necessary. This yield floor was a completely self-imposed rule that was not necessary to maintain the ECB's credibility or the integrity of its monetary policy. By eliminating the floor, and by allowing bonds with shorter maturities to be included in the bond buying program, the ECB has freed up a significant share of the Euro Area bond market that could not be purchased previously. This is especially true in the larger core countries like Germany and the Netherlands where around 70% of bonds that had been ineligible can now be bought by the ECB (Chart 4). Chart 4ECB Removing A Self-Imposed Constraint Adding it all up, the ECB has successfully pushed out the bond market "cliff" where the pace of bond purchases was expected to peak out. As we show in Chart 5, the annual growth in the ECB's balance sheet is now expected to be maintained around the current pace for the next year. This implies additional downward pressure on core European bond yields via a narrower term premium. This should keep the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds at historically wide levels while the Fed continues on its rate hiking path. Bottom Line: The European Central Bank (ECB) bought time for Euro Area inflation to sustainably move higher by extending the duration, and removing some of the self-imposed limits, on its bond buying program. The higher aggregate amount of monetary stimulus to be delivered in 2017 was an easing, not a taper. This should support a relative outperformance of core European bond markets next year. Treasury-Bund Spreads Will Stay Wide In 2017 The steady widening in the yield gap between U.S. Treasuries (USTs) and German government debt has been one of the dominant themes in global fixed income over the past few years. The gap between the benchmark 10yr UST and German Bund now sits at 210bps, the highest level since the late 1980s. Do not look for the spread to narrow anytime soon. The combination of a Fed exiting the quantitative easing business, as the ECB was ramping up its bond buying, goes a long way to explain the steady widening of the UST-Bund spread. From a more fundamental perspective, wider spreads are a product of the persistently expanding gap between inflation and unemployment in the U.S. versus Europe, which has created a growing monetary policy divergence between a tightening Fed and an easing ECB (Chart 6). Chart 5Pushing Out The Monetary Peak Chart 6Big Divergences Between Europe & The U.S. The Euro Area remains in a state of excess capacity, as indicated by the negative output gap and an unemployment rate that remains above estimates of NAIRU.2 The opposite exists in the U.S. where the economy is close to, if not beyond, full employment. Both the ECB and Fed are projecting tighter labor markets over the next three years, although the decline in Europe will not be enough to push the unemployment rate below NAIRU (Chart 7). If the central banks' forecasts for both unemployment and inflation come to fruition, then the underlying gaps that have driven the UST-Bund spread widening in recent years will begin narrowing to levels less favorable for Bunds over Treasuries in the years ahead (Chart 8). This implies that the peak level of the UST-Bund spread should be reached sometime in the latter half of 2017. Chart 7Fed & ECB See Unemployment Moving Lower Chart 8UST-Bund Spreads: Widening Now, Narrowing Later A shift in relative monetary policies will be required for that peak to occur, led by a move by the ECB towards tapering its bond purchases and the Fed to signal an end to the current slow-motion tightening cycle. As discussed earlier, the former is unlikely to happen until the ECB can be comfortable in projecting Euro Area inflation will rise sustainably towards the 2% central bank target. That is likely to happen later in 2017 when the ECB is forced, once again, to make a decision on the future of its asset purchase program and when Euro Area inflation expectations are more likely to be closer to the ECB target. From the Fed's perspective, some signs that the U.S. labor market is cooling off would likely be necessary for the FOMC to ease off the monetary brakes. However, given our expectation that U.S. inflation will continue to grind higher over the course of 2017, amid a period of accelerating U.S. growth and a potential fiscal boost from the new Tweeter-in-Chief in the White House, we do not see the Fed backing off from its planned rate hikes next year. In sum, we see the transition period from UST-Bund spread widening to narrowing beginning in the latter half of 2017, led more by rising Bund yields than declining UST yields. In the meantime, with no move in the bond spread currently priced into the forward curves of the two markets, there is room to profitably play the spread from both directions - wider first, narrower later. (Chart 9). The spread widening is currently stretched, however, both in terms of the level (middle panel) and price momentum (bottom panel). Thus, some consolidation of the recent rapid move higher in the spread is likely before the next phase of widening can begin. Bottom Line: Growth and inflation divergences between the U.S. and Euro Area have pushed the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds to the highest levels in 30 years. Those divergences will begin to narrow over the course of 2017, but not before the Treasury-Bund spread widens further. Maintain an above-benchmark stance on core Europe versus the U.S. in hedged global bond portfolios. Renzi's Vacuum Effect On June 28th of this year, we moved to a below-benchmark stance on the Peripheral bond markets of Italy and Spain. Our concern was that, with cyclical economic momentum starting to slow in those economies, at a time of increased European political uncertainty and renewed pressure on the weakest parts of the European banking system, the risks of owning Peripheral Euro Area sovereign debt had become more elevated. This portfolio allocation recommendation has paid off so far, generating 64bps of excess return versus the Barclays Global Treasury hedged index. Today, we reiterate this stance and add a new trade, shorting 5-year Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos, to our Overlay Trade Portfolio (Chart 10). Chart 9Spreads Must Consolidate Before Moving Higher Chart 10Underweight Italian Bonds A lost opportunity The latest developments in Italy have not been friendly to bond investors. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's defeat in the referendum earlier this month, and his subsequent resignation, has made the Italian political scene more uncertain. The vacuum created by his departure will lead to a period of delay on badly needed structural reforms. Moreover, the odds have increased that new elections will happen in 2017, with a chance that anti-Euro populist parties like the Five-Star Movement could gain greater influence. Against such a backdrop of renewed political instability, investors will likely require a larger risk premium to hold Italian bonds. The "no" result in the constitutional referendum came as no real surprise. Polls had already been pointing in that direction in the weeks leading up to the vote, as voters were becoming increasingly concerned about the proposed reforms that would eliminate many of the embedded checks & balances in Italy's multi-party political system. However, the magnitude of the "No" victory leaves one to wonder if Italians have the appetite for difficult reforms. More likely, the country will be content to simply try to muddle through, yet again. Although, this strategy could work in the short term, at some point Italy's structural fragilities will re-emerge. This would be unfortunate, since Italy's reform momentum has been decent of late. According to the European Commission, substantial progress has been made in reforming the banking sector, the labor market and the educational system. Yet, Italy still has massive work to do in order to become competitive: Italy has a horrible demographic outlook, with a labor force that is projected to suffer steep declines in the years ahead and a participation rate that remains low. Italian productivity growth has been anemic, underperforming all developed markets and most emerging markets before and after the 2008 crisis.3 Italy scores very poorly in terms of generational earnings elasticity. This means that the future earnings of Italian children are highly dependent on their parents, implying low social mobility. The quality of Italy's institutions - according to the annual rankings from the World Economic Forum - and its labor market efficiency are underwhelming compared to its peers. Unfortunately, Italy cannot really afford to maintain the status quo. Despite a strained infrastructure, growth in Italian investment spending has lagged that of the rest of the developed world by a wide margin since 2008 (Chart 11). Political gridlock will only postpone the necessary productivity-enhancing adjustments that could boost Italy's long-term economic potential and help reduce the low-growth risk premium on Italian financial assets. Investment spending is also being restrained by Italy's other major structural problem - an undercapitalized banking system clogged with non-performing loans. Until this issue is resolved, credit growth, investment spending and overall economic growth will remain feeble. Hence, a resolution of the banking impasse is paramount. Unfortunately, there is no clarity as to how this situation could be quickly resolved in an investor-friendly fashion. As our colleagues at BCA European Investment Strategy have highlighted, the mechanisms used for public bailouts of the troubled banks in Spain & Ireland after the 2011-12 European banking crisis are unavailable to Italy after the advent of the European Union Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The BRRD allows state intervention in a banking crisis, but only after creditors like senior bondholders and large-value depositors have taken significant writedowns of their exposures to the troubled banks.4 It is highly unlikely that Italian banks would seek a government bailout if it were to hurt senior creditors, many of which are individual Italian citizens who were sold the senior debt of banks as high-interest investment vehicles. The only alternative for the banks is to pursue an injection of capital from financial markets, but investors have shown little appetite to participate in recent capital raising exercises for some of Italy's most troubled banks. Without healthier banks, Italy's economy will struggle to grow. Already, the Italian business cycle expansion is exhibiting signs of exhaustion. After a few years of rapid increases, consumer confidence has rolled over; much lower wage-growth partly explains this trend. As a result of lower confidence and income, consumption growth is decreasing anew (Chart 12). Chart 11Lagging Investments Chart 12Consumption Will Recede Against this backdrop, Italian growth will disappoint expectations (Chart 13). While ECB asset purchases of Italian debt have helped reduce the risk premium on Italian debt in the past couple of years, the increasing odds of an Italian economic downturn remain a significant negative for Italian bonds. Increased risks, but no crisis Some market participants fear that Italy could succumb to a debt sustainability crisis, potentially triggering a Euro break up. This scenario remains remote, in our view. In the last few years, Italy has extricated itself from its debt trap. With the federal government running a primary budget surplus, and with the nation as a whole running a current account surplus, the Italian debt arithmetic has become much less problematic. It would now take a deep domestic recession or a global deflationary shock to push Italy back into a fiscal crisis. We do not expect either to occur in 2017, so the longer-term debt sustainability risk will probably not resurface during the year. Moreover, a full blown political crisis driving a euro collapse is unlikely. Surveys show that Italians overwhelmingly support the Euro Area (Chart 14). Moreover, our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy believe that Euro-skepticism in Italy is not a long-term, strategic interest but a short-term, tactical gambit. Italian policymakers are using it as a "negotiating tactic" against austerity-minded Berlin and Brussels.5 Chart 13Economic Growth To Moderate Chart 14Italians Support The Euro Area From the bond market's perspective, there should only be a modest political risk premium priced into Italian bond yields, in response to rising odds of a Brexit-like anti-EU stance becoming a reality in Italy. However, in practice, odds are that the market won't reach that logic immediately during the transition period to a new caretaker Italian government and eventual fresh elections later next year. A spread widening phase will likely happen before the bigger picture is fully understood. Investment implications If the ECB starts hinting at tapering its bond purchases later this year, as we discussed earlier, most European bond yields will move higher, but more dramatically so in countries that have benefitted the most from loose monetary policies. Italy is near the top of that list. As much as the market has been able to front-run ECB purchases, as the ECB described in a recent research paper, the market will also try and front-run the taper phase.6 This won't happen in the first half of 2017, but it could definitely be the case in the second half. More importantly, our underweight stance on Italian sovereign debt hinges on Italy's slow structural decay, rather than a view on future ECB tapering. As they lift a monetary policy that has, by design, distorted asset prices, the true value of Italian debt (i.e. yield) will re-surface, definitely at higher yields and most likely at wider spreads to Germany. Stay underweight Italian bonds versus both core Europe and hedged global benchmarks. For a less directional exposure, traders should short 5-year Italian bonds versus Spanish Bonos. Spain's structural backdrop has become much more solid in recent years: Labor productivity and wages have improved (Chart 15). Spain's real estate market has been healed after the bursting of the mid-2000s bubble; house price and transactions are growing at a healthy pace again (Chart 16). Spain's employment elasticities have increased much more drastically than those of Italy since the crisis, meaning this economy can better shift its human capital towards growing sectors. Spain's banking sector appears in much better shape than Italy's; Spanish Bank non-performing loans (NPLs) now stand at 30% of tangible common equity, versus 100% for Italy. Chart 15Italy Has Productivity Problems Chart 16Spanish Housing: Not a Drag Anymore In sum, Spain's economy has become better equipped to handle any financial turmoil, making Spanish bonds a less risky asset to own versus Italian equivalents. This might transpire when the ECB does finally begin to taper its asset purchases. We recommend implementing this short Italy/long Spain trade at the 5-year maturity point, where a 67bps yield increase is priced into the Italian forwards, versus 60bps for Spanish bonds, on a one-year horizon. A 7bp widening is a low hurdle for making our trade profitable, given the growing risks in Italy. Bottom Line: Global bond portfolio managers and traders should underweight Italian bonds, both versus global hedged benchmarks and Spanish Bonos. A risk premium will continue to build into Italian bonds over the course of 2017, as political gridlock and insufficient structural improvements will plague this economy over the next few years. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment 3 Using date from the U.S. Conference Board on global labor productivity 4 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy: Asking The Wrong Question", dated December 1, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Section II of the BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno", dated September 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1939.en.pdf?712abb4a54132af89260d47385ade9ef The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. Corporate Bonds: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. C&I lending standards are no longer tightening and bank stocks have rallied significantly. Corporate Bonds: Spreads are too tight at the moment, even for an improving economic environment. Remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now. We are actively looking to add exposure to corporate credit from more attractive levels. Feature There is no question that the U.S. economy is on a firm footing heading into the New Year. Third quarter real GDP growth came in at a robust 3.2%, and the Atlanta and New York Fed tracking models currently forecast fourth quarter growth of 2.6% and 2.7%, respectively. This represents a marked acceleration from the average growth rate of 1.1% witnessed during the first two quarters of 2016. Forward-looking survey data are also pointing in the right direction. The ISM non-manufacturing survey reached 57.2 in November, its highest level since October 2015, while the expectations component of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey reached 88.9 in December, its highest level since January 2015 (Chart 1). The question for bond investors is how much of this good news is already reflected in Treasury yields. Higher Treasury yields and a stronger dollar have already led to a material tightening in some broad indexes of financial conditions, enough to exert a meaningful drag on U.S. growth (Chart 2). In fact, according to the Fed's FRB/US model, the recent interest rate and dollar moves could be expected to shave 1% from GDP over the next eight quarters. Chart 1Economic Tailwinds Chart 2Financial Conditions Must Ease The natural conclusion is that while some upside in Treasury yields is justified by an improving economic outlook, the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly and must pause in the near-term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. Sentiment and positioning indicators also confirm that the uptrend in yields appears stretched (Chart 2, bottom two panels). As such, last week we tactically shifted our recommended portfolio duration allocation from 'below benchmark' to 'at benchmark'.1 We expect Treasury yields will grind higher next year, reaching a range of 2.8% to 3% by the end of 2017, but the selloff will proceed more gradually, in line with the acceleration in economic growth. A More Uncertain World The premise that the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly is confirmed by our Global PMI models of the 10-year Treasury yield. We track two versions of our Global PMI model. One is a 2-factor model based only on the Global PMI index and a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The intuition behind this model is that improving global growth contributes to a higher fair value Treasury yield. However, for a given level of global growth, increasingly bullish dollar sentiment applies downward pressure to yields. This is because a stronger dollar represents a tightening of monetary conditions, so that all else equal, a stronger dollar means we should expect fewer Fed rate hikes. The current fair value reading from this 2-factor model is 2.26%, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.49% appears somewhat cheap (Chart 3). The second version of our Global PMI model is a 3-factor model which adds the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (EPUI) as a third independent variable. All else equal, an increase in uncertainty about the economic outlook should depress the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields. The data appear to back-up this assertion, as the EPUI is negatively correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield over time. With the addition of the EPUI, our 3-factor model explains 84% of the variation in the 10-year Treasury yield since 2010, compared to 80% from our 2-factor model. The EPUI spiked last month, and as such, this version of the model suggests that fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is only 1.82% (Chart 4). Chart 32-Factor Global PMI Model Chart 43-Factor Global PMI Model There are probably good reasons to overlook last month's spike in policy uncertainty. For one, the EPUI, created by Baker, Bloom and Davis,2 is largely constructed from algorithms that scan newspaper articles for keywords. They do not attempt to distinguish between economic news with bond-bearish or bond-bullish implications. Second, we have found that large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in economic growth tend to mean-revert fairly quickly. This past summer's Brexit vote being a prime example. As a counterpoint, however, the negative correlation between the EPUI and the 10-year Treasury yield is quite robust (Chart 5), and historically, incidents of spiking policy uncertainty and rising Treasury yields have been few and far between. Since 1991, there have been 42 instances when the monthly increase in the EPUI exceeded one standard deviation. In those 42 months, the 10-year Treasury yield increased only 36% of the time, with last month's 53 basis point rise being by far the largest on record. We tend to view the reading from the 2-factor model as the more reasonable assessment of fair value in the current environment. But the spike in policy uncertainty does underscore why we should view the recent bond selloff skeptically. The recent selloff has, to a large extent, been predicated upon promises of fiscal stimulus that have yet to be delivered, from a President-elect who has shown himself to be highly unpredictable. In this environment, near-term caution is clearly warranted. Of course, this week the market's focus will at least temporarily turn away from fiscal policy and toward the Fed. We expect that the Fed will announce a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate tomorrow, but also that participants' interest rate projections will not change meaningfully. The FOMC will likely be much slower to react to promises of fiscal stimulus than the market. With the Fed's projected near-term path for interest rates already mostly discounted by the market (Chart 6), we could see a "dovish hike" from the Fed tomorrow coinciding with the near-term top in Treasury yields. Chart 5Economic Policy Uncertainty & Treasury Yields Chart 6A "Dovish Hike" Is In The Price Bottom Line: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. A More Favorable Environment For Credit We frequently point to three main indicators that we use to assess the current stage of the credit cycle: Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Monetary conditions relative to equilibrium C&I bank lending standards In a report3 published earlier this year we found that the performance of bank stocks relative to the overall market is another useful indicator (Chart 7). While the credit cycle is still very much in its late stages, recently, our indicators have been sending marginally more positive signals. The CHM remains deep in 'deteriorating health' territory and non-financial corporate balance sheets continue to lever-up aggressively. However, the indicator did inch slightly closer to 'improving health' territory in the third quarter due to an improvement in all six of its components (Chart 8). Make no mistake, trends in corporate balance sheet leverage are not supportive for corporate spreads. In fact, as we will explore in a future report, the recent divergence between rising leverage and tightening spreads is nearly unprecedented during the past 40 years. But at the margin, recent trends are less worrisome. Chart 7Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 8Corporate Health Monitor Components Box1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole. These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Second, although monetary conditions appear very close to our estimate of equilibrium, the recent steepening of the yield curve suggests that the market is revising its estimate of monetary equilibrium higher, leading to a de-facto easing of monetary conditions. In the long-run, with the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, this sort of easing is unlikely to persist. But, as we argued in a recent report,4 the bear steepening curve environment could continue in the first half of next year as the Fed is slow to respond to an improving economy. Third, C&I bank lending standards have fallen back to unchanged after having tightened for four consecutive quarters. This likely reflects less stress in the energy sector now that oil prices have rebounded. Fourth, bank stocks have rallied strongly alongside the steepening yield curve. To the extent that higher bank stock prices reflect lower future commercial loan delinquencies, then this trend should be viewed positively from the perspective of credit investors. To test the idea that bank stock performance might help us trade the corporate bond market, we take a look at the past six credit cycles, going back to 1975 (Chart 9). The bottom panel of Chart 9 shows the percent drawdown in relative bank equity performance from its peak during the most recent credit cycle. We define credit cycles as the periods between when the CHM crosses into 'improving health' territory. For example, we define the most recent credit cycle as beginning when the CHM fell into 'improving health' territory in 2002 and ending when it fell into 'improving health' territory in 2009. Shaded regions in Chart 9 show periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory. Chart 9Bank Equity Drawdown & Corporate Bond Performance If we construct a trading strategy using the CHM alone, we can get fairly good results. We find that investment grade corporate bonds underperform duration-equivalent Treasury securities in 3 out of 6 instances, over a 12-month investment horizon, following the time when the CHM first crosses into deteriorating health territory, for an average excess return of -1.2% (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 12-Month Investment Horizon However, we find that this result can be improved if we also incorporate bank stock price performance. If we were to only reduce corporate bond exposure when the CHM was in deteriorating health territory and after the drawdown in bank equities exceeded 20%, then the position is still profitable in 3 out of 6 instances, but for a more negative average return of -1.9%. Further, if we were to wait for the drawdown in bank equities to surpass 30%, then the hit rate on our position improves to 3 out of 5 and the average return falls to -4.6%. We find similar results if we use a 6-month investment horizon (Table 2). In the current cycle, the drawdown in bank stocks breached 25% in February but has since reversed course, and it has not yet reached the 30% threshold. Our analysis suggests that corporate bond underperformance tends to persist for some time even after the drawdown in bank stocks exceeds 30%. Table 2Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 6-Month Investment Horizon Chart 10Corporate Spreads Are Too Low Bottom Line: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. We remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now, due to poor starting valuation (Chart 10). But we are looking for an opportunity to upgrade from more attractive spread levels in the next couple of months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact", dated December 6, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the construction of this index please see www.policyuncertainty.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Lighten Up On Duration", dated February 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Introduction Our clients know it is important to keep up to date with the latest thinking on investment (that is of course why they read BCA's Global Asset Allocation). But with hundreds of investment books published every year - most gimmicky or aimed at inexperienced individual investors - it is hard to know which books to read. Ahead of the holiday season, when our clients may have a few quiet days in the office to do some background reading, we have combed through the investment books published during 2016 to come up with our recommendations. We selected books that we think investment professionals (CIOs, asset allocators, investment advisers, money managers) will find useful in their work to help improve their understanding of markets or their investment process. We excluded books aimed solely at personal investors, and general books on economics or current affairs. These are serious investment books - the sort you could read at your desk and not be embarrassed if your boss or staff member caught you - though the best are also a pleasure to read. We hope you will find something useful here. Your Complete Guide To Factor-Based Investing - The Way Smart Money Invests Today - By Andrew L. Berkin & Larry E. Swedroe In response to client requests, Global Asset Allocation published a Special Report in July 2016 on Smart Beta strategies,1 which are the "benchmark-driven version of factor-based investing." We concluded that "smart beta strategies can be a useful tool in both strategic and tactical asset allocations" and that "thorough due diligence is the key to success." But we did not have room in a short report to delve into details on how to do the due diligence. This book provides exactly that guidance on "how to do the due diligence" among the hundreds of potential factors that have been identified by academics and financial practitioners over the past half century. First, the authors provide a list of criteria that a factor must meet in order to be considered as a useful factor. In addition to providing explanatory power to portfolio returns and delivering a premium (an above-market return), the factor must have Persistence (has it historically delivered reasonably reliable returns?), Pervasiveness (does it, on average, deliver those returns in a variety of locales and asset classes?), Robustness (does it depend on one very specific formulation but fails to work if other related versions are tested?), Intuitiveness (does it make sense?) and Investability. Then the authors present in detail the seven factors that they have identified according to the above criteria, each in a separate chapter. These factors are: Market Beta, Size, Value, Momentum, Profitability and Quality, Term, and Carry. Readers can refer to these chapters in any order. Finally, the authors present very interesting appendixes to explain some widely known factors which they consider as just a variation on these seven factors. Overall, this is an easy read and a useful guide for non-quant investors who are interested in factor-based investing in general and Smart Beta strategies in particular. Trading On Sentiment - The Power Of Minds Over Markets - By Richard L. Peterson Far more often than investors care to admit, intellect and logic take a back seat to emotion. During bull markets, the highly activated reward system deactivates the loss system, thereby fueling overconfidence and greed. Investors ignore risks. During bear markets, the loss system overrides the reward system, media stories amplify fear, and sentiment becomes too pessimistic. As such, the authors advocate that investors need to understand emotional weaknesses and plan ahead for moments of vulnerability, both during bull and bear markets. The book is filled with important lessons, thought-provoking quotes from renowned investors, and does a wonderful job of applying behavioral finance to trading. While some of the chapters on short-term trading may not be relevant for our clients, many chapters, such as the section on bubble formation and the impact of behavioral biases and emotions on those bubbles, certainly make it a worthwhile read. One of our favorite points was the Keynes beauty contest example. A newspaper published pictures of multiple faces and participants were asked to identify which six would receive the most votes from the entire participant pool. The book outlines the different levels of thinking, from using one's perceptions to more advanced attempts to try to understand what others will like. We believe this example of game theory provides an important lesson for investing. It is imperative that investors understand market participants, as well as their motivations, thought processes and interpretations. Another noteworthy story from the book was the chess tournament held by playchess.com in 2005. Players were allowed to team up with human and computer partners. In general, the combination of humans and computers performed the best. Surprisingly, a team of amateurs and computers won the competition. The authors argued that amateurs have a different mental makeup, where lack of ego and flexibility in thinking allowed for a better decision-making process. Within GAA, we apply similar ideas and processes. We have quant models that we use as a starting point in our decision-making process. However, we understand that models cannot capture all fundamentals and relationships can change. As such, we combine our seasoned judgment to add more logic and flexibility to our process. Adaptive Asset Allocation: Dynamic Global Portfolios To Profit In Good Times - And Bad - By Adam Butler, Michael Philbrick and Rodrigo Gordillo Forget viewing risk as simply asset price volatility. Instead, the authors advocate that risk should be measured as the probability that someone will not meet their financial goals, and the objective should be to minimize that risk. While we are often programmed to think of risk in terms of volatility, drawdown, etc., it is important to remember the ultimate goal of meeting client objectives. The book briefly brings up a case study from the Cass Business School that concludes it is "more important to understand how the parts of a portfolio work together than it is to understand the individual parts themselves." In Global Asset Allocation, we apply this framework, often making our decisions at sub levels, for example country/region and sectors, based on their co-movement with the other assets and effect on the overall portfolio. While we generally agree with the authors on their adaptive asset allocation framework, which includes momentum, recent volatility and correlations, we have found that correlations can be quite difficult to model. First, two assets that are typically correlated can take a very long time to converge. Second, relationships between financial assets change often. Investors must apply fundamental analysis and judgment to understand when this occurs and why. We also disagree with a portion of the section on regime investing. The authors break regimes into four categories - inflationary boom, disinflationary boom, stagflation and deflationary bust. However, they also state that it is "very difficult to know with any confidence which regime we are actually in at any point in time, and much harder still to predict when a regime will change and what direction such a transition would take." While we agree with the latter part of that statement, we disagree with the former. Regimes typically last for at least a decade. As such, turning points are challenging to forecast but a decade-long trend should be identifiable based on macro fundamentals. Overall, the book contains several interesting points and we suggest clients read it. Even though it may not offer necessarily brand new material, the book offers important reminders that it certainly cannot hurt to review and presents some fresh perspectives on investment topics. Empire Of The Fund: The Way We Save Now - By William A. Birdthistle Mutual funds, with a total of $16 trillion in assets in the U.S., have a reputation as the simplest investment vehicle for individuals. But this book argues they also contain significant problems: poor regulation, weak governance, frequent scandals and, in particular, high and non-transparent fees. While the book is aimed at individual savers, any professional investment adviser who recommends mutual funds will find much in here that is useful - and worrying. Birdwhistle, a lawyer specializing in the investment industry, describes in detail current legal and structural issues surrounding the mutual fund industry. He sees the high level of fees (which total $100 billion a year) as the biggest problem. Fees are highly variable (the cost of an S&P 500 index fund can vary from a few basis points to as much as 1.25%) and it remains surprisingly difficult to figure out the exact amount of fees for each fund. He focuses his ire on the distribution (12b-1) fee, which allows "fund advisers to use the money of current investors...to advertise the fund to prospective investors." Making mutual funds function efficiently is increasingly important since individuals are forced more and more to provide for their own retirement and most are failing to do so: the median 401(k) account contains only $111,000, which would currently provide an income of only $7,300 a year. What is the solution? Birdthistle rejects - in our view too readily - ETFs (too many are exotic, and they tempt savers to trade frequently) and target-date funds (some have too high an allocation to equites at retirement date). His main suggestion is that savers should be required to pass a test to obtain a "financial license" (like a driver's license) before being allowed to buy tax-exempt pension plans, which we find intrusive and impractical. But his proposal for a nationwide pooled savings scheme, like the Thrift Savings Plan available for Federal government employees, is interesting. The TSP, run by Blackrock with a choice of 10 straightforward funds, benefits from scale to reduce its expense ratio to only 2.9 basis points. The author also suggests greater enforcement, arguing that the SEC's performance has been disappointing. For a complex book that cites legal cases and carefully describes fund economics, it is a delight to read, with numerous entertaining anecdotes and telling analogies. Highly recommended for wealth managers. The Institutional ETF Toolbox - By Eric Balchunas This is a well-structured reference book - a "toolbox" - covering everything one could possibly want to know about ETFs. Glancing through the Table of Contents, for example, it's easy for a reader to spot the section titled "Conclusion: Five Takeaways." "Implied liquidity," not just traded volume, is important for ETFs because of their "creation/redemption" process. But what is "implied liquidity" and how does creation/redemption work? Search the Index at the end of the book, and you find the pages that give the answers. The book has two parts. The first explains why ETFs are so popular, where they came from, how they work, how institutions can use them in numerous different ways, and why due diligence is as important in selecting ETFs as in selecting active managers. The second part breaks down the ETF world into categories by asset class such as equities, fixed income and alternatives, and by strategy/style such as smart beta, currency hedging and liquid alts (otherwise known as "hedge fund replicas"). In each category, the author gives an overview of the ETF choices available and some specifics of each ETF included. Since the book is written by a Bloomberg analyst, naturally it includes plenty of helpful examples of how to use Bloomberg functions for further ETF research. The ETF industry is constantly evolving. The author also provides a list of related websites and podcasts for continuing education. Finally, the author has done a good job in writing about a "highly technical" subject in an easy to read and entertaining fashion. We even found a few trivia questions for your Christmas party: for example, "Which ETF holds the all-time record for the fastest to reach to US$ 1 billion AUM and what is that all-time record time?" For a book published by Bloomberg, we were surprised to see so many typos. But it does not prevent us from recommending this as a reference book for our clients who already use ETFs or are considering using them in their asset allocation decisions. The Intelligent REIT Investor - How To Build Wealth With Real Estate Investment Trusts - By Stephanie Krewson-Kelly and R. Brad Thomas After the market close on 31 August 2016, publicly traded REITs and other listed real estate companies were removed from Financials and promoted to their own GICS sector. This separation significantly raises the profile and attraction of the asset class. For many years, the reputation of REITs was tarnished by the mortgage REIT debacle of 1974. But, with REITs' market cap exploding from just $8.7 billion in 1990 to $940 billion in 2015, investors need to understand the importance of this asset in portfolio construction. The author describes the publicly traded equity REIT as the purest form of corporate and property ownership because of its 1) professional management, 2) strong corporate governance, and 3) complete pre-tax profits distributions to shareholders. The real economy strongly influences property and REIT fundamentals and, when rising rates are accompanied by a robust economy, REITs perform well. The book does a great job at introducing a beginner REIT investor to this complex investment structure built on multiple property types, lease agreements, and numerous share class structures. A key attraction of REITs has been their high yields relative to bonds and equities. Consequently there is an entire section devoted to analyzing safety and sustainability of dividends. Lease length and structure have also been strong fundamental predictors of REITs' performance. The author clarifies the connection between cash flow streams and their impact on stock performance during different economic scenarios. The book also introduces the newest innovations and developments in the REIT industry - most importantly the rise in popularity of exchange-traded vehicles that provide diversification and liquidity. Low expense ratios and tax efficiency of ETFs make them a compelling choice. The book closes with a thorough run-through of various analysis techniques used by industry experts to read between the lines of real estate financial statements. The author stresses that one of the most enduring challenges in analyzing REITs is the lack of standardized reporting. Give the current search for yield, investors can surely benefit from this asset class which has seen an ever expanding global exposure. Global Asset Allocation is currently overweight REITs2 in our global portfolio. Investors who need a thorough explanation of how the asset class works will profit from reading this book. Index Revolution - Why Investors Should Join It Now - By Charles D. Ellis Nobody will ever know just how much harm was done by sticking the term "passive" onto indexing. Passive is synonymous with "giving up." The author argues that this hurt the reputation of index investing in the period from the 1960s to the late 1990s, when it was hard to see how anything but active investing would be accepted, and when even mediocre managers could make double-digit returns. But the same can't be said for the current market. The author comes with over 50 years of experience in active management. In the first half of the book he uses real-life experiences to play devil's advocate in the debate between active management and indexing. He starts by explaining important structural shifts in the market that have changed the landscape of investing: for example, greater disclosure requirements that have reduced market inefficiencies; the increased proportion of trades executed by algorithms; and the way that large funds are limited to large-cap investments. However, his strongest argument for indexing is actually a compliment to active management - the increasing number of skillful managers has made markets more efficient, leading to an erosion of alpha over the years. The author moves on to provide evidence for how active strategies underperform indexing. Over 80% of large-cap managers and almost 90% of small-cap managers underperformed their benchmarks over a 10-year period through December 2015. He argues that fees are misunderstood because of the common behavioral bias of "framing" - results differ depending on how the question is framed. Fees should be quantified not as a percentage of assets, but as a percentage of the manager's performance. Hence the true cost of active investing is the incremental fees above indexing, as a percentage of the incremental return above indexing. The author closes with a number of arguments in favor of indexing: 1) low turnover and, subsequently, lower taxes; 2) lower operational costs; 3) increased portfolio diversification; and 4) avoiding manager risk. We do not completely agree with the author's dismissal of active investing, but there are number of important facets about indexing that investors should consider. The case for indexing has never been stronger thanks to all-time low bond yields, high equity valuations, and weak growth expectations. The author sums up the active vs passive debate with this provocative quote from Suzanne Duncan, Global Head of Research at State Street: "Indexing is not being passive; it is an active decision to not be foolish and pay for something that isn't there." Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "REITs Vs. Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy If the Fed is about to begin interest rate re-normalization in earnest, then investors should heed the message from historic sector performance during tightening cycles. The tech sector remains vulnerable to tighter monetary conditions. Downshift communications equipment to neutral and stay clear of software. The OPEC supply agreement reinforces our current energy sector bias, overweight oil services and underweight refiners. Recent Changes S&P Communications Equipment - Reduce to neutral. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Why Is Equity Vol So Low? The equity market has been in a remarkably low volatility uptrend in recent weeks, powered by hopes that political regime shifts will invigorate growth. Signs of economic life have also played a role. The risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations on the basis of anticipated fiscal stimulus that may disappoint. In the meantime, the tighter domestic monetary conditions get, the less likely equity resilience can persist, especially in the face of rising instability in other financial markets. Volatility has jumped across asset classes, with the bond market leading the charge. The MOVE index of Treasury bond volatility has spiked. Typically, the MOVE leads the VIX index of implied equity market volatility (Chart 1, second panel). Currency and commodity price volatility has also picked up. It would be dangerous to assume that the equity market can remain so sedate. If the economy is about to grow in line with analysts double-digit profit growth expectations and/or what the surge in some cyclical sectors would suggest, then a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations is likely to persist. Against this backdrop, it is instructive to revisit historic sector performance during past Fed tightening cycles. If one views the next interest rate hike as the start of a sustained trend based on the steep trajectory of expected profit growth embedded in valuations and forecasts, then it is useful to use that as a starting point rather than last year's token 'one and done' interest rate hike. Charts 2 and 3 show the one-year and two-year average sector relative returns after Fed tightening cycles have commenced. A clear pattern is evident: defensive sectors have been the best performers by a wide margin, followed by financials, while cyclical sectors have underperformed over both time horizons. To be sure, every cycle is different, but this is a useful frame of reference for investors that have ramped up growth and cyclical sector earnings expectations in recent months. There has already been considerable tightening based on the Shadow Fed Funds Rate, a bond market-derived fed funds rate not bound by zero percent (Chart 4, shown inverted, top panel). The latter foreshadows a much tougher slog for the broad market. The point is that tighter monetary conditions can overwhelm valuation multiples and growth expectations. Chart 212-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 324-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 4A Blow-Off Top? The violent sub-surface equity rotation has presented a number of rebalancing opportunities. The defensive health care and consumer staples sectors have been shunned in recent weeks, with capital rotating into financials and industrials. As discussed previously, the industrials and materials sectors cannot rise in tandem for long with the U.S. dollar. These sectors should be used as a source of funds to take advantage of value creation in consumer discretionary, staples and health care where value has reappeared. Chart 5It's Not A ''Growth'' Trade Indeed, the abrupt jump in the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio appears to have been driven solely by external forces, i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying operating profit drivers. For instance, emerging market (EM) equities and the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand (Chart 5). The former are pro-cyclical, and outperform when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the U.S. cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debt liabilities, and the lack of EM equity participation reinforces that the recent rise in industrials is not a one way bet. As a result, our preferred cyclical sector exposure lies in the consumer discretionary sector, and not in capital spending-geared deep cyclical sectors. A market weight in financials, utilities and energy is warranted, as discussed below, while the tech sector is vulnerable. A Roundtrip For The Tech Sector? After a semiconductor M&A-driven spurt of strength, the S&P technology sector has stumbled. As a long duration sector, technology has borne a disproportionate share of the backlash from a higher discount rate, similar to the taper-tantrum period in 2013. Then, bond yields soared as the Fed floated trial balloons about tapering QE. Tech stocks did not trough until yields peaked (Chart 6). In addition, a recovery in tech new orders confirmed that the sales outlook had brightened. Now, the capital spending outlook remains shaky, and tech new order growth is nil (Chart 6). Meanwhile, tech pricing power has nosedived (Chart 6). Domestic deflationary pressures are likely to intensify as the U.S. dollar appreciates, particularly against the manufacturing and tech-sensitive emerging Asian currencies. Tech sales growth is already sliding rapidly toward negative territory (Chart 7), with no reprieve in sight based on the contraction in emerging market exports, as well as U.S. consumer and capital goods import prices. Chart 6Tech Doesn't Like Rising Bond Yields Chart 7No Sales Growth True, tech stocks have a solid relative performance track record when the U.S. dollar initially embarks on a long-term bull market (Chart 8). Why? Because tech business models incorporate deflationary conditions, investors have been comfortable bidding up valuations in excess of the negative sales impact from a stronger U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, history shows that this relationship becomes untenable the longer currency appreciation persists. Chart 8 shows that in the final phase of the past two U.S. dollar bull markets, tech stocks have abruptly reversed course, rapidly ceding the previously accrued gains. Apart from a loss of competitiveness from currency strength, the new anti-globalization trend is bad for tech as it has the highest foreign sales exposure. The bottom line is that there is no rush to lift underweight tech sector allocations. In fact, we are further tweaking weightings to reduce exposure. For instance, software companies are worth another look through a bearish lens. Software sales growth is at risk from pricing power slippage amidst cooling final demand (Chart 9). Chart 8Beware Phase II Of Dollar Bull Markets Chart 9Sell Software... The financial sector is an influential technology sector end market. On the margin, financial companies are likely to reduce capital spending on the back of deteriorating credit quality. Chart 9 demonstrates that when financial sector corporate bond ratings start to trend negatively, it is a sign that software investment will stumble. A similar message is emanating from the decline in overall CEO confidence (Chart 10), which mirrors the relentless narrowing in the gap between the return on and cost of capital (Chart 8, bottom panel). Even C&I bank loans, previously an economic bright spot, are signaling that corporate sector demand for external funds and working capital are softening, consistent with slower capital spending. Against a backdrop of fading software M&A activity, we are skeptical that the S&P software index can maintain its premium valuation (Chart 11). Chart 10... Before Sales Erode Chart 11Not Worth A Premium Elsewhere, the communications equipment industry will have trouble sustaining this summer's outperformance. Communications equipment stocks broke out of a long-term downward sloping trend-line on the back of productivity improvement. Chart 12 shows that after a period of intense cost cutting, wage inflation was negative. Our productivity proxy, defined as sales/employment, is growing rapidly. These trends are supportive of profit margins, and at least a modest valuation re-rating from washed out levels. Nevertheless, our confidence that a major bullish trend change has occurred after years of underperformance has been shaken. The budding reacceleration in top-line growth has hit a snag. New orders for communications equipment have rolled over relative to inventories. Investment in communications equipment has dipped (Chart 13). The telecom services sector has scaled back capital spending (Chart 13, third panel), suggesting that final demand will continue to soften. It will be difficult for companies to maintain high productivity if revenue growth stagnates. Chart 12Productivity Strength... Chart 13... May Be Pressured Consequently, the most likely scenario is that relative performance is entering a base-building phase rather than a new bull market, warranting benchmark weightings. Bottom Line: Reduce the S&P communications equipment index (BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, MSI, HRS, JNPR, FFIV) to neutral, in a move to further reduce underweight tech sector exposure. Stay underweight software (BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ATVI, EA, ADSK, SYMC, RHT, CTXS, CA). Energy Strategy Post-OPEC Production Cut Chart 14Energy Stocks Need Rising Oil Prices The energy sector continues to mark time relative to the broad market, but that has masked furious sub-surface movement. We have maintained a benchmark exposure to the broad sector since the spring, but shifted our sub-industry exposure in October to favor oil field services over producers, while underemphasizing refiners. OPEC's recent agreement to trim flatters this positioning. Whether OPEC's announcement actually feeds through into meaningfully lower production next year and higher oil prices remains to be seen, but at a minimum, supply discipline should put a floor under prices. Rather than expecting the overall energy sector to break out of its lateral move relative to the broad market, we continue to recommend a targeted approach. The energy sector requires sustained higher commodity prices to outperform, and our concern is that a trading range is more likely (Chart 14). OPEC producers suffered considerable pain over the last two years as they overproduced in order to starve marginal producers of the capital needed for reinvestment. U.S. shale producers slashed capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cut capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. Chart 15 shows that only OPEC has been expanding production. That has set the stage for limited global production growth, allowing for demand growth to eat into overstocked crude inventories in the coming years. OPEC's decision to trim output should mitigate downside commodity price risks, providing debt and equity markets with confidence to increase capital availability to the sector. With a lower cost and easier access to capital, producers, especially shale, will be able to accelerate drilling programs. The rig count has already troughed. The growth in OECD oil inventories has crested, which is consistent with a gradual rise in the number of active drilling rigs. As oversupply is absorbed, investment in oil field services will accelerate, unlocking relative value in the energy services space (Chart 16). Chart 15OPEC Cuts Would Help... Chart 16... Erode Excess Oil Supply This overweight position is still high risk, because it will take time to absorb the excesses from the previous drilling cycle. There is still considerable overcapacity in the oil field services industry, as measured by our idle rig proxy. Pricing power does not typically return until the latter rises above 1 (Chart 17). Companies will be eager to put crews to work and better cover overhead, and may accept suboptimal pricing, at least initially. Meanwhile, if EM currencies continue to weaken, confidence in EM oil demand growth may be shaken, eroding valuations. Still, we are willing to accept these risks, but will keep this overweight position on a tight leash and will take profits if OPEC does not follow through with plans to limit production. On the flipside, refiners will not receive any relief in feedstock prices, which should ensure that the gap between Brent and WTI prices remains non-existent (Chart 18). That is a strain on refining margins. Our model warns that there is little profit upside ahead. That is confirmed by both domestic and global trends. Chart 17Risks To A Sustained Rally Chart 18Sell Refiners Chart 19Global Capacity Growth Refiners have continued to produce flat out, even as domestic crude production has dropped (Chart 18). As a result, inventories of gasoline and distillates have surged, despite solid consumption growth. In fact, refined product output is about to eclipse the rate of consumption growth, which implies persistently swelling inventories. There is no export outlet to relieve excess supply. U.S. exports are becoming much less competitive on the back of U.S. dollar strength and the elimination of the gap between WTI and Brent input costs (Chart 19). Moreover, rising capacity abroad has trigged an acceleration of refined product exports in a number of low cost producer countries, including India, China and Saudi Arabia (Chart 19). Increased global refining capacity is a structural trend, and will keep valuation multiples lower than otherwise would be the case. The relative price/sales ratio is testing cyclical peaks, warning that downside risks remain acute. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral overall sector weighting, with outsized exposure to the oil & gas field services industry (BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, HP, FTI, RIG), and undersized allocations to the refining group (BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, TSO). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights The recent tightening in U.S. monetary conditions increases the risk of a pause in the dollar bull market. The yen is in a strong cyclical bear market, but it is best placed to benefit from a dollar correction. The ECB just eased policy; monetary divergences between the euro area and the U.S. will only grow wider, hurting the cyclical prospects for EUR/USD. We are opening a short EUR/JPY tactical trade. The SNB's EUR/CHF floor is firmly in place. USD/CHF will continue to mirror EUR/USD until Switzerland's output gap is fully closed. Feature The dollar will make new cyclical highs against all currencies, but the short-term outlook for the greenback is poor. The 7% appreciation in the dollar and the 100 basis point move in 10-year Treasury yields have tightened U.S. monetary conditions considerably. This development would be manageable in the face of actual stimulus, but it is a much greater handicap when the economy has not yet received any shot in the arm. Tactically, the yen is well positioned to benefit from a dollar correction as the ECB just deepened its easing bias. The Dollar Faces Short-Term Headwinds The dollar is extremely overbought, as our Capitulation Index warns of an imminent correction (Chart I-1). The likelihood that the dollar weakens further around the Fed's meeting is growing. Our discounter suggests the market is already expecting rates to be 60 basis points higher a year from now. While we do think this hurdle will ultimately be beaten, the move has been too fast. The U.S. economy has surprised to the upside, a reality highlighted by the strong rebound in the U.S. surprise index. However, this development is backward looking. While the economy has yet to receive the benefit of the potential Trump stimulus, it still has to contend with large adjustments in financial variables. Take mortgage rates as an example. They have risen by 70 basis points since July to 4%; however federal income tax withholdings - a proxy for income growth - have plunged (Chart I-2). Falling income growth and rising financing costs create a major tightening of U.S. household financial conditions. Chart I-1Overbought Dollar Chart I-2Tightening The Screw On Households On the corporate front, while the ISMs paint a very upbeat picture, the shock from the dollar's surge is large. The 7% increase in the broad trade-weighted dollar since August could curtail profits growth by 15%. This could lead to additional weakness in capex and a slowdown in employment. Altogether, based on the Fed FRB model, the recent interest rate and dollar moves could shave 1% from GDP over the next 8 quarters. This is not a trivial amount when trend growth is around 1.5%. This reality is unsustainable. As such, we agree with our U.S. Bond Strategy service that a temporary pullback in yields is likely. As we argued three weeks ago, this would mean a correction in the overbought dollar.1 Ultimately, this correction should prove temporary. The U.S. economy was on a strong footing before liquidity conditions tightened. A reversal of the recent dollar and bond moves will only solidify this economic trend. And exactly as the economy's strength redoubles, Trump's fiscal stimulus will take shape. The timing of this development is uncertain. Our current bet is that this will happen in late Q1 2017. Once our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge moves back into "no-slack" territory, the market's now-premature Fed pricing will be warranted (Chart I-3). This is when the USD can rise again. Chart I-3Conditions For Repricing The Fed: Almost There Bottom Line: The dollar is in the midst of a cyclical bull market. However, markets rarely move in a straight line. This time is not different. The recent surge in the dollar and bond yields hurt the very fundamentals that have supported these moves in the first place. With the pain being inflicted on the economy before the benefits of any Trump stimulus package are felt, the likelihood of a partial reversal of recent trends is growing. The Yen: A Vehicle To Play A Dollar Correction The yen should be the key beneficiary of a dollar counter-trend fall. Our yen Capitulation Index shows that USD/JPY has not been as overbought as it is now in 21 years (Chart I-4). Moreover, bond yields continue to correlate tightly with the yen (Chart I-5). This simply reflects the low beta of Japanese yields. When global rates move up, JGB yields rise less, implying widening rate differentials in favor of USD/JPY. The opposite is also true. Chart I-4Yen Is Massively Oversold Chart I-5Yen And Bonds: Brothers In Arms While we continue to hold our short USD/JPY tactical trade, we remain very worried over the long-term outlook for the yen. The old policy of the Bank of Japan, targeting the quantity of money, was a failure. The monetary base increased by 220% between December 2012 and today, but M2 only grew 15% or so. In effect, the BoJ changed the composition of Japanese money, skewing it toward bank reserves as the money multiplier collapsed by 65% (Chart I-6). However, the new policy of targeting the price of money - interest rates - should deliver a higher growth dividend. As the economy improves, inflation expectations perk up (Chart I-7). But with the BoJ keeping nominal rates capped near 0%, this depresses real rates, further stimulating the economy and boosting inflation expectations. This also hurts the yen. Chart I-6Targeting The Quantity Of ##br##Money Was A Failure Chart I-7Stronger Japan = Higher##br## Inflation Expectations\ Additionally, by capping JGB yields at 0%, the BoJ accentuates the upward pressure on yield differentials between the rest of the globe and Japan that naturally occurs when global yields move up. This means that an upward move in global rates is even more harmful to the yen than before. Finally, the Abe administration is ramping up its fiscal stimulus rhetoric as the job-opening-to-applicants-ratio hits its highest level since 1991. Stimulating the economy in the face of labor market tightness is inflationary. With the BoJ committing to an accommodative policy stance until inflation overshoots by a wide margin, this policy is tantamount to willingly crush real rates and the yen.2 Bottom Line: The yen cyclical bear market is intact. However, if the dollar corrects and Treasurys temporarily rally, the extremely oversold yen will be the prime beneficiary. The Euro: This Is Not Tapering Mario Draghi managed to please both the hawks and the doves on the ECB's governing council. But once the dust settles, this week's policy move represents an important easing. While the ECB's purchases will be curtailed to EUR60 billion from EUR80 billion in April 2017, the asset purchase program now has an unlimited time frame. Additionally, not only can the ECB buy securities with a maturity of 1-year, the -40 basis-point floor on eligible securities has been scrapped. The staff forecasts reinforced a dovish message. Inflation expectations have been revised down, from 1.6% to 1.3% in 2017, despite an acknowledgement that energy prices will positively contribute to inflation. Furthermore, when a journalist asked President Draghi if the 2019 HICP forecast of 1.7% was in line with the ECB's target of "close but under 2%", Draghi squarely responded that 1.7% was not within the target; and therefore, the ECB would persist in maintaining its monetary accommodation. Moreover, the market responded with all the signs that the ECB had eased policy. The yield curve steepened by 11 basis points - its sharpest daily move since mid-2015, the euro plunged 1.3%, and European stocks, led by financials, rallied. With regards to the economic outlook, recent survey data have improved, with eurozone manufacturing and service PMIs rising to 53.7 and 53.8, respectively. However, worrying signs highlight the persistence of the euro area output gap. Euro area core CPI has rolled over and wage growth is slowing, despite the falling unemployment rate (Chart I-8). Additionally, broad money supply growth has rolled over sharply, seconding the omen bank equities have flashed for future credit growth (Chart I-9). Therefore, the European credit impulse could wane in the coming quarters. Chart I-8European Labor Market Slack Is Evident ##br##Signs Of European Excessive Slack Chart I-9Money, It's ##br##A Crime Going forward, monetary divergence between the euro area and the U.S. will grow further, supporting our bearish EUR/USD stance and our bullish dollar view. We are closing our long EUR/AUD trade as the ECB is clearly bent on goosing the European economy. Tactically, the outlook is much trickier and the euro could rebound. The euro capitulation index is oversold and relative positioning between the EUR and the USD is skewed (Chart I-10). For now, we are expressing our negative view on the euro by shorting EUR/JPY. Being in place since late September, the dovish implications of the BoJ's policy are much better appreciated by the market than the recent ECB's move. Moreover, short-term technicals for EUR/JPY are stretched and are beginning to roll over (Chart I-11). A pull back in EUR/JPY toward 116.5 is likely. Chart I-10Euro: Oversold... Chart I-11...But Overbought Against The Yen Bottom Line: The ECB eased policy this week. With the European economy exhibiting fewer signs of an impending pickup in inflation than the U.S., monetary divergences between the Fed and the ECB will only grow wider in the future. This will weigh on EUR/USD. In the short-term, risks to the USD could help the euro. Thus, we elect to express our bearish view on the euro by shorting EUR/JPY for now. The Swiss Franc: A Floor Is A Floor The SNB unofficial floor below EUR/CHF 1.06 is firmly in place. The Swiss economy sports a negative output gap of around 2.5% of GDP according to the IMF and OECD. Even after recent improvements, headline and core CPI remain below 0%. Both nominal and real Swiss retail sales are contracting at a 2.5% annual pace. This fits with wage growing near 0%, with consumer confidence hovering near levels last registered when the euro crisis was raging, and with house price annual growth falling to 1%. Unsurprisingly, Swiss business confidence is below its post-crisis average and business investment is tepid. In line with this poor corporate and consumer backdrop, Swiss non-financial credit growth has fallen to near 0% - among the lowest readings in the past 20 years, and the money multiplier remains depressed (Chart I-12). This suggests that the output gap will continue to narrow only slowly. Interestingly, the outlook for Switzerland was on a definite upswing in 2014, but the botched CHF unpegging of January 2015 caused the economic relapse witnessed in 2015 and 2016. With Swiss stocks - financials and exporters particularly - underperforming global averages, financial markets are still flashing a red flag for the SNB. This means USD/CHF will continue to mirror EUR/USD. Moreover, positioning on the CHF is at oversold extremes, highlighting the risk of a correction in USD/CHF (Chart I-13). Chart I-12No Credit Growth In Zurich Chart I-13Swissie Is Oversold On a structural basis, the outlook for the CHF is much brighter. The Swiss economy will firm as the SNB keeps the EUR/CHF floor in place. Employment growth is strong, real exports are healthy, and financial as well as monetary conditions are very supportive. Money supply should ultimately pick up. The SNB is expanding its balance sheet through the reserve accumulation required to maintain the peg. In due time, inflationary pressures and wage growth will re-emerge in Switzerland. In terms of signal, once we see Swiss inflation and wage growth back above 1%, as well as non-financial private-credit growth moving back to its post-2010 average, the SNB should abandon its peg. Supported by a net international investment position of 120% of GDP and a current account surplus of 11% of GDP, the long-term equilibrium exchange rate for CHF will continue to rise, lifting the Swiss franc in the process (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The CHF Has A Long Term Positive Bias Additionally, the inflationary consequences of Trump's policies may take time to emerge, but U.S. inflation could rise markedly when the USD cyclical rally ends.3 Because Switzerland is structurally a low-inflation economy and a net creditor to the world, the long-term appeal of the Swiss franc will only increase. Bottom Line: The SNB unofficial floor under EUR/CHF is alive as the Swiss economy still exhibits deflationary tendencies. On a 12-18 months basis, USD/CHF will move higher as the CHF will be dragged down by EUR/USD. Structurally, the Swiss franc will become a buy only once the SNB abandons its current policy. We are monitoring inflation, wages, and credit growth to judge when this will become a reality. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "One Trade To Rule Them All", dated November 18, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 For a more detailed discussion of the BoJ's policy, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "How Do You Say "Whatever It Takes" In Japanese?", dated September 23, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Trump: No Nixon Redux", dated December 2, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The dollar rose substantially on Thursday after the ECB policy decision. Before this, DXY had already hit overbought levels, as shown by the RSI. Currently, the capitulation index is also in overbought territory, suggesting that a correction is to come. Moreover, it is likely that the market had overpriced Trump's fiscal proposals, as details have yet to be released. The U.S. economy remains strong for now. The ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing hit 53.2 and 57.2, respectively. The labor market remains healthy despite the recent disappointing job reports. However, the tightening in U.S. financial conditions represents a short-term hurdle. Report Links: Party Likes It's 1999 - November 25, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Reaganomics 2.0? - November 11, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro encountered significant volatility following the ECB's decision. Although the interest rates were left unchanged, the ECB put forth an extension of the asset purchase program (APP) at the current pace of EUR 80 billion, but plan to reduce purchases to EUR 60 billion by April 2017. The euro declined on the news, and on a possible increase of the purchases if "the outlook becomes less favorable". Recent data reflects a strong economy overall, as well as strong performances from its participants. This will limit the euro's downside. However, the euro may encounter some volatility in the long run as potential political risks begin to be priced in, and stimulating monetary policy continues. 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 The oversold U.S. bond market is finally stabilizing, a development that has also put a halt on the rapid yen sell-off of the past month, with USD/JPY encountering resistance at around 114.5. We are of the view that then yen downturn is overdone, as USD/JPY currently stands at highly overbought levels. That being said we continue to reiterate that past the short term, the outlook for the yen remains extremely bearish. The BoJ will continue to implement radical measures until it sees any signs of life in Japanese inflation. Recent data suggest this is not likely to happen any time soon: Japanese consumer confidence continues to be very depressed, standing at 40.9. Japanese GDP grew by a measly 1.3% YoY in Q3, underperforming expectations. Industrial production continues to contract, declining by 1.3%. Report Links: Party Likes It's 1999 - November 25, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP/USD has rallied by about 4% from its end of October lows, being the best performer against the U.S. dollar among G10 currencies in this time period, in part because the U.K. economy has consistently beaten expectations. Nevertheless, recent data has been a mixed bag: while both construction PMI and Markit Services PMI outperformed expectations, Industrial and manufacturing production underperformed them, contracting by 1.1% and 0.4% respectively. We have often pointed to the cable as an attractive buy given that it is very cheap and fears of a significant slowdown in the British economy have been overblown. However it is important to point out that at levels near 1.30 the pound is no longer such a bargain, as the potentially damaging effects of Brexit still have to be taken into account. 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 Recent data paint a dull picture for the Australian economy, the most concerning of which is the quarterly contraction in GDP of -0.5%, and an annual growth of 1.8%, below expectations of 2.5%. Before GDP was published, the RBA left its cash rate unchanged at 1.5% on the basis of a weak labor market and poor investment prospects. With only part-time employment growing, and full-time employment contracting, it is unlikely that this growth will translate into improving consumer spending or inflation. RBA Governor Philip Lowe also highlighted that tightening monetary conditions and uncertainty have subdued business investment. We remain bearish on the AUD. The recent GDP figures may also cause the RBA to become slightly dovish in the future if data does not compensate for current weaknesses. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 We continue to be bearish on the kiwi on the short term, given that dollar strength will continue to weigh on this currency. That being said, some factors make this currency attractive against its crosses. While it is true that inflation is very low, this is mostly due the price of tradable goods falling by 2.1% YoY, which reflects the fall in commodity prices. Non-tradable inflation on the other hand stands at a healthy 2.4%. With base effects taking hold, inflation should pick up again, a development which could put upward pressure on rates and support the NZD on its crosses. 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 Canada's export sector has recently come into light as a factor hurting the economy. Although export figures for October increased by 0.5% on a monthly basis, this reflected a 1.2% increase in energy export prices offsetting a 0.7% decline in volume, and this was despite a stronger U.S. economy and a weaker CAD. Recent news highlights that Mexico has overtaken Canada as the second biggest exporter of goods to the U.S, reflecting rising Canadian unit labor costs and declining productivity, as well as the recent appreciation in CAD/MXN. Domestically, Canada continues to be mired by a bleak outlook. Wednesday's monetary policy statement highlights that uncertainty and tightening monetary conditions are hampering business confidence and investment. The BoC, therefore, kept rates unchanged at 0.5%. Rate divergences will lift USD/CAD. 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 USD/CHF will continue to mirror the Euro as the unofficial peg by the SNB is likely to stay enforced. The Swiss economy continues to be plagued by deflationary pressures. Additionally, Switzerland's real retail sales continue to contract by 2.5%YoY, while wage growth remains at 0% and consumer confidence is hovering near 2010/2011 lows. The SNB will try to avoid their 2015 blunder, where they unpegged the currency, and derailed the economic recovery that Switzerland was experiencing. On a longer time basis the outlook for the franc is very positive. This currency continues to be supported by a current account surplus of 11% of GDP and monetary conditions are as accommodative as they can be, which means that eventually SNB will have to break the floor under EUR/CHF, letting the Swiss Franc follow rising fair value. 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 We are bearish on the NOK versus the dollar, yet we are positive on this currency on its crosses, as oil should outperform other commodities. Moreover, Norway is the only country in the G10 where inflation is above target, which should put pressure on the Norges Bank to abandon its easing bias. The housing sector is also in dire need of higher rates. However, a big portion of household indebtedness in Norway is in adjustable rate mortgages. As house prices and household debt keeps rising, rising rates will become more dangerous as an ever larger pool of fragile debt would be at risks. Thus, it is imperative for the Norges Bank to not keep monetary policy too accommodative for too long in order to avoid further excess in household debt and in the housing market. This will eventually prove bullish for the NOK. 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 Despite recent resilience in the consumer sector, a risk is looming. Rising house prices and increased mortgages have become a notable issue, as Riksbank research points out. Low rates have allowed households to finance their mortgages at a low cost and markets are worrying about household indebtedness, with around 35% of new borrowers burdened with debt above 650% of their disposable income, according to an IMF study. This may be a potential danger as consumers substitute consumption for debt-servicing, limiting the upside for Swedish interest rates. In the short run, the outlook remains more upbeat for the SEK as the dollar will swap overbought optimism for economic reality. But longer term, USD/SEK has more upside. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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